Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Northampton with the Soke of Peterborough (Kettering Division), in the room of John Francis Eastwood, esquire, O.B.E., K.C. (Magistrate of one of the Police Courts of the Metropolis) [Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Canterbury) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ilkley) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.

Ely Cathedral Canonries Bill,

Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT AND WINTER ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to inform unemployed persons, and particularly new claimants to standard benefit, of their rights in respect of winter allowance?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The general principles on which the Board proceed in regard to winter allowances have been announced each

year in this House, and such announcements have been given wide publicity in the Press. As regards persons on standard benefit, posters are exhibited in all Employment Exchanges informing applicants that assistance may be granted to persons who are within the scope of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934 (including persons in receipt of benefit) and who can prove that they are in need. Where such assistance is granted by the Unemployment Assistance Board, winter additions are made in appropriate cases without requiring the applicant to make a special request for such an addition.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that during the recent bad weather there were many new claimants, and that many of these claimants have no knowledge that they could get supplementary benefit?

Mr. Brown: I am surprised at that, but I am glad the hon. Member has made it clear.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister do what he can to let it be known that the unemployed have every right, particularly during the terrible winter through which we are passing, to make application for extra assistance?

Mr. Brown: Yes; but, in spite of what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) suggests, these people are not so uninformed on these matters.

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the administrative county of Durham there were, on 11th December, 1939, 41,693 persons unemployed, and in the five county boroughs 31,450, making a total of 73,143; and can he state whether it is the intention of the Government to build factories in this area, other than on the Team Valley Trading Estate, or to introduce some other means with a view to providing for these people?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the position in this area, and would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21st November last. Subject to strategic and technical considerations, it is the settled policy of the Government that new production capacity should be located where suitable labour is available. As regards the provision of alternative sources of


employment, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) on 8th February.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question, with regard to the Government's intentions in providing work for these people? Is it not a serious matter that, after five months of war, we still have in one county over 75,000 persons unemployed?

Mr. Brown: That is so; but the hon. Member knows that there are particular difficulties in that area.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Would the Minister like to share the 17s. worth of democracy of those people?

PONTARDAWE DISTRICT.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the increased number of persons un employed in the Pontardawe area who have been thrown idle at the Gilbertson works and also by the Tirbach Colliery, Ystalyfera, being on stop; and will he cause inquiries to be made and see if anything can be done to get a resumption of work at an early date?

Mr. E. Brown: As regards the tinplate works at Pontardawe, I cannot add anything to the information I have already given to the hon. Member. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines is, I understand, making inquiries to see whether anything can be done with regard to the Tirbach Colliery.

Sir W. Jenkins: Is it a fact that the Gilbertson steel mills at Pontardawe are idle because of the lack of coal?

Mr. Brown: I was not aware of that. In the correspondence that I have had on the subject, that point has not been put to me.

Sir W. Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, in order to see whether that is so?

Mr. Brown: That is a point for my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines.

NORMANTON, CASTLEFORD AND PONTEFRACT.

6. Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the number of wholly unemployed registered at Normanton, Castleford and

Pontefract, at the latest date available, and the comparative figure in August, 1939?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress made in absorbing the unemployed?

Mr. Brown: I am never satisfied.

Following is the statement:

The Table below shows the numbers of wholly unemployed persons aged 14 and over, on the registers of the Normanton, Castleford and Pontefract Employment Exchanges at 15th January, 1940, and 14th August, 1939.

Employment Exchange.
15th January, 1940.
14th August, 1939.


Normanton
447
458


Castleford
2,304
2,509


Pontefract
655
666

UNINSURED WORKERS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed and available for work who, when last in employment, were not insured for unemployment insurance?

Mr. E. Brown: At 15th January, 1940, there were on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, 129,259 persons who were not classified as insured persons. Statistics are not available as to the number of persons on the register whose last employment was not insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Mr. Smith: In that case can the Minister explain why, in a recent speech, he dwelt on this aspect?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, I was pointing out that a great number of people who were not in employment before had come forward since the war started to help in our war effort.

TRANSFERENCE OF WORKERS.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the decision at present ruling prohibiting the erection of Government factories in the counties of Northumberland and Durham, he proposes to continue payment of travelling and removal expenses for people desirous of seeking employment in more fortunate areas?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) on 13th February.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend going to alter the decision announced in the answer given to the hon. Member?

Mr. Brown: I think not. It seems to me to meet the case.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the household removal scheme still in operation? It was limited at one time to the Special Areas.

Mr. Brown: That is another issue. If the hon. Member will look at the answer, he will see that it does set out the amounts that were given.

Mr. Dalton: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit the suggestion in the hon. Lady's Question that it has been decided that no more Government factories are to be set up in these two counties?

Mr. Brown: Certainly not.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many instructors at training centres with more than four years' service were dismissed in 1938 and 1939, respectively, with a month's notice, on the ground that they were redundant; what salaries are paid to such instructors; and how many years' service have they to give before receiving establishment and superannuation rights;
(2) the number of instructors at training centres, with more than two years of service, who resigned their posts in 1938 and 1939, respectively; whether all instructors at such centres have served an apprenticeship to the craft they teach; what form of technical training have they to undergo before appointment; and how are they recruited or appointed to this service?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

WOODWORKERS.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many thousands of highly-skilled woodworkers are unemployed, and that the number is increasing; and what steps are being taken to utilise the skill of these men in the war effort?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware that unemployment amongst certain classes of skilled woodworkers has increased as a result of the change from peace to war conditions. Following discussions with certain trade unions concerned, the attention of local offices was specially drawn to the possibility of securing alternative opportunities of employment for such workers, and I am hopeful that, in the expansion of the war effort, their services will thus be fully utilised.

POST-WAR EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in association with other Government Departments, he is preparing plans to deal with the difficult situation that will arise in South Wales and Monmouthshire when the large amount of Government work now proceeding comes to an end; and, if so, can he indicate when the plans are expected to be completed?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 1st February to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall), of which I am sending him a copy.

ASSISTANCE (SOUTH WALES).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state at the most recent date the numbers of applicants for unemployment assistance at Pontypool, Blaenavon and Pontnewydd, to whom the wage-stop provision applied; and the number of those applicants who have been granted additional assistance in consequence of the increase in the cost of living?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the information asked for is not available, and I am asking the Board how far it can be obtained without undue expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (RESERVED OCCUPATIONS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether any categories of retail distributive workers are included in the list of reserved occupations; and, if not, will he include the most important in a revised list, so that the work of distributing food to the people may be conducted smoothly?

Mr. E. Brown: Women in the retail distributive trades are reserved at the age


of 25. In general, men workers in these trades are not reserved, but I have recently had discussions with representatives of the trades and have informed them that, when the time approaches for calling up men aged 30 for military service, entries in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations will be made in respect of certain of the more important occupations, provided that conditions have not materially changed in the meantime.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to bear in mind that, with the introduction of rationing of foodstuffs, the tasks of some of these men have become extremely onerous?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I understand that that is so, especially for men in a managerial capacity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL AREAS (TREFOREST TRADING ESTATE).

Mr. Pearson: asked the Minister of Labour which firms on the Treforest trading estate come within the Trade Boards Acts for regulation of wages and hours?

Mr. E. Brown: I have not yet completed my inquiries. As soon as I have done so, I will write to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING (INDUSTRIAL TRAINING).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that every shipyard and every man will be required to meet the naval and merchant shipbuilding required for our war effort, any training facilities are being made available on the various rivers to enable men to take full advantage of the employment offered?

Mr. E. Brown: I am proposing shortly to discuss the question of labour supply in shipbuilding with representatives of the industry, and one of the matters which will receive consideration in those discussions is the question of training.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SUPPLIES (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the decision

to mobilise 1,000,000 women to assist in our war efforts, any training facilities are being provided to ensure that suitable women will be equipped to act as administrators, forewomen, and supervisors; and, if not, when he proposes to take the necessary steps to provide trained personnel?

Mr. Brown: Training is a question in which industry is very closely concerned, and I am at present discussing with representatives of the industries mainly affected the whole question of training, along with other matters connected with the supply of personnel.

Miss Ward: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be well, and very acceptable, if he would also discuss the question with representatives of women?

Mr. Brown: Some of the trade unions, with large numbers of women members, will have to consider the interests of women. I am always ready to meet representative bodies of workers either men or women. I hope the hon. Lady used the word "mobilises" here with great care.

Mr. Thorne: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any consultation with women's organisations with regard to this matter?

Mr. Brown: At the moment, no. We are discussing it only with the engineering group.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister see that before women are brought into engineering or shipbuilding all the unemployed men in those industries are employed?

Mr. Brown: It can be taken for granted that that will be borne in mind during the discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (REPATRIATION OF INDIANS).

Mr. Woods: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the majority of Indians affected by the Ceylon Government's repatriation scheme are Indians from Malabar, and that the Malabar peasant has also suffered considerably by the import of Ceylon copra into India, what steps the Government of India contemplate taking to safeguard the interests of the Malabar peasant?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): In common with other Indians employed in Ceylon, those who come from Malabar are, of course, affected by the dispute arising from the Ceylon Government's retrenchment scheme. Efforts which have been made during recent months to bring outstanding questions at issue between the Governments of India and Ceylon into direct discussion between representatives of the two Governments have, unfortunately, proved unsuccessful. The resulting position is at present under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to say what action may be decided upon.

Mr. Paling: Has it been decided to repatriate these people before the scheme is finished; and how many have already been repatriated?

Sir H. O'Neill: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. Woods: Are any steps being taken to safeguard the interests of these people, who are being returned from Ceylon to India, in many cases in a condition of complete destitution?

Sir H. O'Neill: Yes, Sir. There is close collaboration and discussion between the Governments of Ceylon and India, and I hope that some result will be reached before long.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECH REFUGEES.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Czech refugees have received the £200 emigration grant since the Czech trustees were appointed; and how many have been found work in Great Britain with their help?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): I am informed by the Trustees that, from the time of creation of the Czech Refugee Trust on the 21st July last until the 7th February, the number of refugee families for whom settlement grants have been paid by the Trust in respect of settlement outside the United Kingdom is 311 representing about 570 persons, and that the total of the settlement grants so allotted was £54,080. I regret that up-to-date figures of Czech refugees registered with the Trust who have found employment are not at present available.

Mr. Bartlett: While thanking the Minister for his answer, may I ask him to bear in mind the fact that there are a great number of Czechs who are very worried because this Committee does not seem to be working quite as actively as it should, and can he give it a gentle push on from time to time?

Sir J. Anderson: I have every reason to think that the Committee has been very actively engaged.

Mr. Hannah: Is anything being done about British Guiana in that connection?

Sir J. Anderson: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN'S NATURALISATION (MR. DUVIVIER).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary what were the names of the four sponsors of Mr. Duvivier; and are, or were, any of them members of the British Union of Fascists or the Link?

Sir J. Anderson: It would not be right for me to publish the names of the persons who supported this application for naturalisation. I may say, however, that it was ascertained at the time that they were responsible persons of good repute, and I have no reason to think that any of them is or has been a member of the organisations referred to.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is it generally understood in all cases that the names of these sponsors are not for publication?

Sir J. Anderson: That is so, Sir, to the best of my belief.

Mr. Mander: Would it be fair to say that the Home Secretary would view with grave suspicion any recommendation from anyone who had been a member of either of these two bodies referred to in the Question?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a different question altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE CITIZENS (IMMIGRATION).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether, in the interests of police efficiency, citizens of Eire will in future be required to have visas for this


country and to be under the same restrictions as other aliens; and will he introduce legislation to this end?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. Even if the principle underlying the right hon. Gentleman's Question could be accepted, there would remain a number of practical considerations. The many contacts and relations between people in the United Kingdom and in Eire and the existence of a land boundary between Eire and part of the United Kingdom render the problem of controlling passenger traffic with Eire entirely different from the problem of controlling such traffic with foreign countries. The steps that are being taken were indicated in my reply to a previous Question by the right hon. Gentleman on 7th December last.

Colonel Wedgwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the police are satisfied that with the powers they have at the present time they are able to suppress these outrages?

Sir J. Anderson: I have had no representations from the police to the contrary.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider doing away with partition and solving the problem?

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMAS (SUNDAY OPENING).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary whether he will sanction the earlier opening of at least a proportion of cinemas and news theatres in London on Sundays, as a concession that would be appreciated by large numbers of members of the overseas forces who have no homes in this country and who come up to London on Saturday afternoons or evenings for 24 hours leave, provided that the conditions and working hours of the employés are properly safeguarded?

Sir J. Anderson: Under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, it rests with the local cinematograph licensing authority, which for the Administrative County of London is the London County Council, to fix the hours at which cinematograph entertainments may begin on Sundays, and I have no power to interfere with their discretion in the matter.

Sir J. Lucas: Can the Minister point to a proper alternative on a Sunday, and

is he aware that a wet Sunday afternoon requires some alternative, otherwise men have to walk about the streets?

Sir J. Anderson: There are alternatives on Sunday afternoons.

Mr. Sorensen: What are they?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether the application of the Weekly Rest-day Act is being applied similarly to regular police, first reserve police and war reserve police; and whether, in those forces where the weekly rest-day is suspended owing to present emergency conditions, payment for the loss of the rest-day is made to members of either of the aforementioned classes?

Sir J. Anderson: Under the provisions of the Police (Weekly Rest-day) Act,1910, the right to a weekly rest-day is suspended generally in the present emergency, and there is no question of any payment in lieu of rest-days lost. Time off in compensation for lost rest-days is, however, allowed both to regular police and to police auxiliaries so far as the exigencies of duty permit.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as far as possible, the weekly rest-day or its equivalent is granted reasonably within, say, seven or eight days?

Sir J. Anderson: I have issued a circular to all police authorities urging them to allow time off wherever possible, and I believe that that is the practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHIEF CONSTABLESHIPS (QUALIFICATIONS).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that cases have occurred in which intending applicants for chief constableships, who have had no previous police experience, have been granted permission to attend at some police headquarters in order to gain experience with a view to satisfying that requirement of the statutory police regulations; and, in view of a recent decision that experience gained in this way does not satisfy the statutory regulations, will he issue a memorandum to chief constables and police authorities indicating


that they should not grant permission to such persons or any other person who has not the powers, duties and responsibilities of a constable?

Sir J. Anderson: It is, I think, generally recognised that experience of this character does not constitute police experience for the purposes of the police regulations, but in case there still exists any misunderstanding, I propose, in accordance with the hon. Member's suggestion, to send copies of this Question and answer to all police authorities and chief constables.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Commander the Honourable R. D. Coleridge, R.N., retired, attended the West Sussex police headquarters for a short time prior to his making application for the chief constableship of Bedfordshire; and whether his permission or authority was given for this procedure?

Sir J. Anderson: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, my permission was not required and was not sought.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

POISON GAS (PROTECTION).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make regarding the dangers to the civil population of the possible use of a new war gas by the enemy?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that the gas which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind is arseniuretted hydrogen, the properties and limitations of which have long been well known to every competent chemist. The present civilian respirator gives protection against this gas and, as at present advised, I do not consider that any further measures are necessary.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if the public are warned, as they have been in the present instance, they are prepared to accept any risk and any sacrifice?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that my answer to the Question on the Paper is that protection is afforded by the civilian respirator.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Health the number of school clinics which have been taken over as first-aid posts for air-raid precautions purposes?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I cannot give the figure asked for by the hon. Member without special inquiry from the responsible local authorities. I will send her copies of circulars which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and I have issued to the authorities, asking that where such clinics have been taken over as first aid posts they shall be made available for the work of the school health services.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now been able to extend the concession of part-time service in the Emergency Medical Service to the recipients of second grade salaries on a parity with the terms offered to the higher grade salaried officers in the same service, that is, with a remuneration of five-eighths of the full salary; how many officers have been admitted to this concession; what is the full number of officers open to receive it; and at what date the offer was made?

Mr. Elliot: Careful consideration has been given to representations made on the matter by the Advisory Emergency Medical Service Committee, but the volume of work now falling on officers of the grade referred to is such that I am unable, at the present time, to make them the offer which the hon. Member suggests.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what steps should be taken by junior consultants of honorary staffs who wish to undertake part-time service, in view of the fact that in certain instances such applications have met with no satisfactory reply?

Mr. Elliot: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars, I will make inquiries.

Sir E. Graham-Little: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the secretary of the Central Medical War Committee has represented the Advisory Emergency Medical Service Committee as a body delegated by the Central Medical War Committee of the British Medical Association to present the profession's views on Emergency Medical


Service problems to the Ministry; whether the Advisory Committee is in effect a subcommittee of the Central Medical War Committee, deriving authority from that body; and whether the Advisory Committee is in any way subordinate or responsible to the British Medical Association Committee?

Mr. Elliot: I think that the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The Advisory Committee was appointed by, and reports to, the Central Medical War Committee, which is not a committee of the British Medical Association.

EVACUATION OF SCHOOLCHILDREN (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health what increase he proposes to make in the billeting allowances for evacuated schoolchildren?

Mr. Elliot: I am making a statement at the end of Questions on evacuation and will refer in that statement to the point raised by the hon. Member. I would ask him to await my statement.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report sent to him of a speech made by Mr. Charles Segal, a headmaster who was evacuated with North Kensington schoolchildren to Taunton, in which he described the evacuation scheme as a complete failure; and whether he will consult with local health and education authorities with a view to effecting improvement?

Mr. Elliot: I have seen a Press report of the speech in question. I am in close touch with health and education authorities, through my Advisory Committee on Evacuation, and otherwise. I am circulating particulars of the membership of the Advisory Committee in the Official Report. I do not think it necessary to take special action in the particular matter referred to.

Sir A. Knox: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this schoolmaster spoke the truth?

Mr. Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say of what school in North Kensington Mr. Segal is headmaster?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid I could not answer that question.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the evacuation has not shown the complete incompetence of the London education and health services?

Following are the particulars:

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE EVACUATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN.

List of Members.

Sir Percival Sharp, Secretary of the Association of Education Committees.

Sir Frederick Mander, Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.

Mr. R. N. Armfelt, Secretary for Education, Devonshire.

Mr. J. Chaston, Town Clerk, Kettering.

Mr. H. Darlow, Town Clerk, Bedford.

Mr. E. P. Everest, Clerk of the Atcham Rural District Council.

Mr. J. L. Holland, Director of Education, Northamptonshire.

Dr. P. D. Innes, Chief Education Officer, Birmingham.

Mr. A. J. Lees, Secretary, Urban District Councils' Association.

Mr. J. J. McIntyre, Secretary, Rural District Councils' Association.

Mr. J. Paley Yorke, Principal L.C.C. School of Engineering and Navigation.

Mr. T. J. Rees, Director of Education, Swansea.

Mr. E. M. Rich, Chief Education Officer, London.

Mrs. E. V. Parker, ex-President of National Union of Teachers.

Miss A. Catnach, Headmistress, Putney County School.

Later—

Mr. Greenwood (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether he has any statement to make about the progress and development of the Government's evacuation plans?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The Government have had the question of evacuation under careful consideration. They remain convinced of the desirability of the dispersal of children from the evacuating areas. Plans have therefore been prepared with the object both of retaining in the reception areas as many as possible of the 400,000 children who are still there and of providing for a further large scale evacuation to take place if air raids develop on a scale involving serious and continuous bombing. These plans for a new evacuation have been prepared in close consultation between the Departments concerned and representatives of local authorities and the teaching profession both in England and in Scotland. They will apply to school children only—


not to adults. It will be for the Government to decide, in the light of prevailing circumstances, when these plans are to be put into operation and in respect of which areas action is to be taken.
Evacuation will be voluntary: the parents who register will however be required to sign an undertaking that they will send their children away when evacuation is ordered, and a statement that they intend to leave them in the reception areas until the school parties return. In the meantime, the Government attaches great importance to the retention in the reception areas of those children who are already there. The nation, I believe, is deeply grateful to the householders who have provided homes for these children and does, I am sure, recognise its exacting nature and the calls it has made on their time, labour and home life.
I am happy to be able to inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen desires to show her appreciation of the great public, spirit shown by those householders who, during the last six months, have sheltered children unknown to them and provided for strangers a home and a sympathy of incomparable value. To each of these householders Her Majesty proposes to send a personal message as a token of her recognition of their service to others. It is the desire of the Government to ease, wherever possible, the burden which this task inevitably involves to the hosts. It has been decided that the billeting allowance in respect of children who have attained the age of 14 should be increased to 10s. 6d. per week. This will not be confined to the scheme for further evacuation, but will come into force in the week beginning 2nd March.
The provision of sick bays and of hostels for difficult children and for those who are unsuitable for billeting in private houses and for other purposes will continue to be developed. Local authorities are being encouraged to make the best use of houses suitable for these purposes. Although other forms of accommodation will be used to the fullest extent practicable, billeting in private houses must remain the main source of provision for the 400,000 children already in the reception areas and for those others who, in the event of air raids, would be evacuated under the plans which I have described.
The equitable distribution of this service among suitable householders is of great importance. At the present time only about one in five of the householders who volunteered a year ago are being called upon, and it will be generally agreed that it is scarcely fair that this task should fall solely on the shoulders of this minority. The Government are therefore making an appeal to the general body of householders and it is a part of the Government plan for 1940 that local authorities should establish a roll of householders willing, when called on, to share with their neighbours in the work of receiving and caring for the children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are each to-day issuing a circular and memorandum to local authorities, in England and Wales, and in Scotland.

Sir Percy Harris: Arising out of the very interesting statement, may I ask the Minister whether the new scheme makes, arrangements as far as possible for the schools to be evacuated as schools and for the children to go under their own teachers instead of mixing children from various schools? Will the Board of Education have more responsibility in this scheme because they are in closer touch with the education authorities than the Minister's Department?

Mr. Elliot: It will be our desire that schools should go as units. We hope that with the greater time which will be available under this scheme it will enable this to be more satisfactorily carried out than was possible under the emergency provisions last year. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and I are in close co-operation, and we are arranging as far as possible for the same close co-operation to take place locally also.

Sir Wm. Davison: Will this scheme not come into operation until the bombing has actually started? Will parents who are willing, having given further consideration to the matter and to the statement made by the Government, be able to send their children now, into a safe area in the country, or must they wait until bombing commences?

Mr. Elliot: The main scheme which I have outlined will be a scheme providing for a further large-scale evacuation to


take place if air raids develop on a scale involving serious and continuous bombing. It has been possible for parents to send their children away and we hope it will be possible for that still to be done. That is one of the reasons we desire to obtain a roll of householders to assist in this survey.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the Minister aware that there is a great shortage of billeting accommodation at the other end, partly owing to the absence of the use of compulsory powers? Does he not regard it as a hazardous business to delay deliberately further evacuation until bombing is actually in progress?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, I am aware that there is at present a shortage of billeting in the Home Counties and areas which have already received a great number of children, and of the difficulty of accommodating a certain number of children from London arising out of the desire to re-unite children with their schools. It is scarcely fair that the whole of this burden should fall on a small minority of householders who are at present accommodating children. As to the danger which may arise, I think the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the number of children at present registered for evacuation is extremely small. One of the reasons for making the new plan contingent upon the development of air warfare is that without that it has been our experience that parents do not register, nor do they bring children for evacuation even when those registered are called upon.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that one very important factor in the problem of evacuation is the desire of the parents to see their children as frequently as possible, and does his scheme cover that very important point?

Mr. Elliot: We have made arrangements to deal with the desire of parents to see their children and considerable advantage is being taken of them. I think this problem is not a major reason for the return of children at the present time.

Sir Annesley Somerville: Will those parents who take advantage of the new scheme be allowed to withdraw their children again, or will it be a compulsory

scheme once advantage has been taken of it?

Mr. Elliot: I am asking, as I have said, that parents should sign an undertaking that they will send their children away when evacuation takes place. Our intention is to leave them in the reception areas until the school parties return. A rigidly compulsory scheme on a scale involving hundreds of thousands of children would be, I think, impracticable. One must work with the good will of the parents, which, I am sure, will be forthcoming under these conditions.

Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister make a statement to explain how the parents are to register? Is it to be done through the local authorities as before?

Mr. Elliot: That is set out in considerable detail in the circular we are issuing to-day, copies of which will be in the Vote Office. Leaflets are being issued to householders to explain to them how this is to be carried out.

Mr. Davidson: In regard to the statement as it applies to Scotland, has there been a new survey in order to try and prevent children being sent, as was the case the last time, over 200 miles away from their parents, who could not even pay them an occasional visit?

Mr. Elliot: Whatever survey is carried out in Scotland in some cases children from certain areas will have to go long distances before suitable billets can be found, and this will also hold for the great city of London.

Sir E. Graham-Little: What measures are being taken to secure that there is an expert medical inspection before the children are evacuated?

Mr. Elliot: That is also set out in considerable detail in the circular which will be found in the Vote Office. It is the intention that inspection will form an integral part of the scheme.

Mr. Messer: Would it not be better if the Minister were to reconsider the billeting allowances of those under 14 in view of the difficulties of finding billets at the present allowances?

Mr. Elliot: It is true that the allowances have to be considered, but I am convinced that it is the disturbance of the home life


people feel most, rather than the insufficiency of the billeting allowances. I think the example given of the desire of the Government and of the nation to recognise the importance of the national service being rendered will weigh very greatly with the householders of this country.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is there to be any contemplated extension of the camp system, or the utilisation of large houses or schools?

Mr. Elliot: As I have said, the authorities are being encouraged to use private houses, empty houses, for sick bases, hospitals and other purposes. As to camps we are already taking steps to fill up the whole programme of camps already constructed. The construction of further camps will need to be considered in the light of the labour and the material available.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will the Minister, in asking mothers to allow their children to remain away for the whole period, have regard to the fact that one of the great factors in bringing children back is the incapacity of the father and mother with a family of four children to pay 24s. a week?

Mr. Elliot: In the Government scheme I do not know any case for which such a charge for a child is made.

Mr. Smith: For four children?

Mr. Elliot: As the hon. Member knows, the scale on which recovery is based has been very carefully worked out and remissions are made wherever cases of hardship are found to exist.

Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister say how many children were taken in at Windsor and Balmoral Castle?

Mr. Elliot: A considerable number were taken in at Balmoral Castle.

Mr. Lipson: Does the Minister think that a more satisfactory billeting arrangement would be made in reception areas if the local education secretary was made the billeting officer?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that it can be said that the local education secretary is more acquainted with the housing position in an area than the housing authority. After all, billeting to a certain extent is a question of housing.

AIR-RAID DAMAGE (WINDOW GLASS).

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Minister of Health whether any instructions have been issued to local authorities to supply institutions and householders with necessary window glass or a substitute for the immediate repair of air-raid damage; and is it proposed to make a charge for such necessities?

Mr. Elliot: The statutory provisions governing assistance in repairing war damage are contained in the Housing (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, and the Essential Buildings (Repair of War Damage) Act, 1939. I issued circulars on the subject to local authorities in August and September last, and I am sending my hon. Friend copies. Under the Acts referred to local authorities can in proper cases repair, or assist in repairing, houses and other essential buildings and any expenditure incurred may remain as a charge on the premises until the end of the war.

VOLUNTEERS (COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the allowance paid to unpaid voluntary air-raid precautions workers for injuries received by them while on duty may also be paid when the injuries are the result of accidents incurred in consequence of the black-out, while they are proceeding from or to duty?

Sir W. Womersley: The terms of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939, admit of the award of compensation in those cases only where the Civil Defence volunteer is on duty at the time of his injury. The question whether this condition obtains in any individual case must be judged in the light of the particular circumstances. The difficulties caused by the black-out are common to the whole civil population. Cases might, however, arise, e.g., an emergency summons, where a volunteer proceeding on duty would be eligible for an award of compensation.

Mr. Lipson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that these persons have to be abroad during the black-out in consequence of the obligation which they have undertaken; and would it not be possible to extend the period of duty so as to cover


all the time from the hour when they leave their homes to the hour at which they return home?

Sir W. Womersley: If they are out during the black-out period on duty they are eligible for compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, KIRKCALDY.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered a complaint from the burgh of Kirkcaldy that Abden Home has been requisitioned by the military authorities to such an extent that the burgh council have difficulty in fulfilling their statutory obligations to paupers owing to the restricted accommodation; and whether, in view of the fact of the home not being technically a specified area, the cost of the provision of shelters necessitated by the presence of troops, would normally have to be borne by the ratepayers of Kirkcaldy, he will sympathetically consider the plea that the cost of the shelters should rank for Government grant?

Sir J. Anderson: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the representations made by the burgh council have been considered but that it is not possible for the military authorities to vacate the home as alternative accommodation for the troops is not available. In any event my right hon. Friend is informed that there is still sufficient accommodation in the home for the inmates. As regards the provision of shelters for the inmates, I doubt if the fact that a number of troops have been billeted in the home increases its liability to enemy attack to such an extent as to warrant the institution of special measures of protection which would not, but for the presence of the troops, be considered necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

UNDER-NOURISHED CHILDREN.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the percentage of under-nourished school-children in Tyneside and Durham areas was 10 per cent. higher in 1938 than in

1935, and that routine school inspections showed more than three times as many under-nourished school-children in Tyneside and Durham areas as in London and the South-East in 1938; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the condition of children in Special Areas shall be safeguarded throughout the war food shortage?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Figures for the year 1935 for the Tyneside and Durham local education authority areas show that the percentage of children with slightly subnormal nutrition was 16.8 and of children with bad nutrition 1.6. Comparable figures for 1938 are 18 per cent. and ·98 per cent. Similar figures for 1938 for all areas in Kent, Surrey and Sussex together with London, which may be taken as representing the South-East, are 8.28 per cent. slightly subnormal and ·23 bad. Durham County, which has by far the largest number of children in the areas to which the Question relates, has been providing liberal quantities of free milk and is now commencing to provide solid meals for the more seriously undernourished children.
I have carefully examined the: figures for Tyneside and I cannot accept the hon. Member's general deductions. The Board have surveyed the arrangements made in most of these particular areas and will continue to urge authorities to use their full powers to provide additional nourishment.

Mr. Adams: In view of the fact that this depreciation in standards is admitted in the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, do I understand that further investigation will take place with a view to remedying this provision?

Mr. Lindsay: The decision has already been taken. The surveys of these particular areas were made almost entirely in the year 1939, and they urge a larger ration of milk, more solid meals and a revised income scale.

Mr. Silverman: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the word "normal" is to be understood as being the average of those examined in the district, or does it mean coming up to some preconceived standard which children ought to attain?

Mr. Lindsay: I would rather not enter into that very difficult problem by question and answer. We always debate it on the Education Estimates.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the new arrangements for part-time education will include provision for nursery schools and classes operative before the beginning of the war; whether provision is being made for the provision and training of children in cultural, recreational and other beneficial activities during the part of the school day when they will not be in the school building; and whether the services of teachers will only be employed for half the school day or, if possible, for those other activities?

Mr. Lindsay: I presume the hon. Member has in mind the arrangements for the resumption of education in the evacuation areas. These arrangements, which are described in the circular, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, contemplate that all children remaining in these areas should be enabled to return to school at the earliest possible date; this would include children in nursery schools and classes as provision can be made for them. Local education authorities have been notified that where full-time schooling is impossible in the immediate future less formal occupations for the remainder of the school day should be organised.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that for the remainder of the schooldays some attempt will be made to organise services for the children?

Mr. Lindsay: A special note was sent out two months ago about the effect.

Mr. J. Hall: Is it the policy of the Board of Education to have full-time educational facilities for the children in these areas at the earliest possible date?

MEDICAL INSPECTION OF CHILDREN.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state the position at the present moment throughout the country with regard to the medical inspection of schoolchildren?

Mr. Lindsay: From the statements received from local education authorities in

response to the Board's Circular 1490, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member, it appears that in the great majority of areas routine medical inspection is being carried out or will very shortly be resumed. In this circular the Board urged authorities to take steps to secure that within a period of three months all children, whether attending school or not, should have the benefit of medical inspection and, where necessary, treatment. My Noble Friend has urged authorities to treat the matter as one of the greatest urgency.

Mr. Adams: Is there any particular reason why this should not have taken place five months ago?

Mr. Lindsay: There were a great many reasons, but the main reason was the very great difficulty of carrying out the supplementary services connected with Civil Defence..

RECEPTION AREAS (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Parliamenetary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) how many children evacuated to the reception areas are now attending school half time, and how many full time;
(2) how many of the local children in the reception areas are now attending school half time, and how many full time?

Mr. Lindsay: Local education authorities of reception areas have been asked to furnish returns by the end of this week which will enable me to give the information desired.

Sir A. Knox: As the non-existence of whole-time education in reception areas is due to the lack of accommodation would it not be possible, now that many children have returned to London, to amalgamate schools? Has this policy been considered?

Mr. Lindsay: In a great many districts local and evacuated children have been amalgamated to great advantage.

Sir A. Knox: Why has it not generally been done?

Mr. Lindsay: Because some latitude is still left to local education authorities.

Mr. Naylor: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that London school children in the East. South and West of England


are now talking in the dialect of their adopted counties and does he propose to take any steps to deal with the situation when the children come back talking these different languages?

MONMOUTHSHIRE (DOUBLE-SHIFT SYSTEM).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the number of schools in Monmouthshire now operating a two-shift system in order to provide accommodation for children evacuated from other areas; and when the necessary additional premises will be available so as to return to a full-time system of education?

Mr. Lindsay: In December last, the latest date for which information is available, there were 44 public elementary schools or departments in Monmouthshire providing accommodation for evacuated children, and in only seven cases was it found necessary to adopt a double-shift system. Endeavours were being made to provide full-time education as soon as possible. I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MASSAGE FACILITIES.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many hospitals have closed down their massage departments as a war-time economy, and that as a consequence, not only have a number of skilled masseurs been thrown out of employment, but great hardship has been caused to thousands of patients; and whether, as the cessation of massage treatment for such complaints as rheumatism will cause many post-war cripples, he will take steps to get massage facilities brought up to at least a pre-war level?

Mr. Elliot: I appreciate the importance of maintaining massage facilities, and inquiries which I have made show that, although there was at the beginning of the war some curtailment of the work of the massage departments of some hospitals, there has been a general reopening of out-patient departments at which massage treatment is given. I may add that provision for massage is

also being considerably increased under the emergency hospital scheme.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there is a large number of masseurs unemployed at the present time, and in view of the condition of victims of rheumatism, will he take steps at the earliest possible moment to see that these people are employed?

Mr. Elliot: That is being done by the out-patients' departments of these hospitals,

WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Health what additional powers are now being conferred on the Welsh Board of Health over and above those which the board now holds?

Mr. Elliot: The additional powers of the Minister of Health which it is proposed to exercise through the Welsh Board of Health are those relating to (a) Housing and town and country planning; (b) General local sanitary services, e.g., water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal, public cleansing, etc., as well as certain other local government services; (c) Alterations of boundaries of local government areas.

INFLUENZA.

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement as to the number of cases of influenza and their severity reported up to the present?

Mr. Elliot: The number of cases of influenza is not exactly known, because the disease is not notifiable, but the number of deaths ascribed to influenza in the great towns in England and Wales (which include over half the total population) give some indication of the prevalence of the disease. The numbers of such deaths reported in the period of six weeks ended 3rd February, 1940, have been successively 46, 94, 158, 291, 416and 350. These figures are higher than the normal figures for this time of the year, but the age distribution of the deaths is of the normal type, so that the greater numbers of deaths suggest greater prevalence of the disease rather than its occurrence in unusual severity.

SANATORIA (MILITARY PATIENTS).

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health in how many tubercular sanatoria


non-tubercular soldiers are receiving treatment; and whether this arrangement is temporary or permanent

Mr. Elliot: In a certain number of sanatoria, as in other hospitals under the casualty scheme, service patients are occupying blocks of beds which have been organised for casualty purposes. The accommodation in sanatoria which is being used in this way for non-tuberculous patients is quite separate from that occupied by tuberculous patients. I am unable to give the figures asked for by the hon. Member without calling for a special return.

Mr. Messer: Are hospitals which are required for civil casualties to be used for military purposes as well?

Mr. Elliot: Obviously there is a certain amount of accommodation available just now, and obviously it is to the advantage of all concerned that that accommodation should be used. Further accommodation is being provided in the hutting programmes and in other ways.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL CAMPS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the present position with regard to the camps built by the National Camps Corporation, Limited?

Mr. Elliot: Twenty-two camps have; now been provisionally allocated to local education authorities. Two schools are going into camps next Monday, and one school on the Monday following. The remaining 19 of the 22 camps allocated will be occupied as soon as the education authorities have made the necessary arrangements, and certain adaptations have been completed.

Mr. Mander: Will the Minister state the average number of children who are going to each of these camps?

Mr. Elliot: Not without notice.

Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say whether the figure will be above 150?

Mr. Elliot: I should not like to say until nearer the time for the actual entry of these schools into the camps.

Mr. McEntee: Can the Minister say under what authority these camps are to be?

Mr. Elliot: I can if the hon. Member will put the Question on the Paper.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: What is the policy to be adopted with regard to the evacuation to these camps. Which areas get priority?

Mr. Elliot: I could not go into that question at this time. We made an offer, in the first place, to the authorities to whose area the camps were near. We have had to do the best we could so as to get each camp occupied by happy and contented school children.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (WOMEN).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the inclusion in the pension scheme at 60 years of age of single women who have at some time been insured, in view of the difficulty that so many women have of retaining paid work until they are 60 years of age?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid that I cannot contemplate the granting of contributory old age pensions to women who are not insured under the Pensions Scheme when they attain pensionable age.

Miss Wilkinson: Would it not be possible to have some relaxation of the rigidly applied 104 contributions rule, because it rules out a large number of women who have paid for many years?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Lady will know the difficulty in fixing an administrative boundary. A new set of rules introduces no less hard cases than the ones they get rid of.

Mr. Salt: Will pensions be granted to single women who have given up their employment to attend to sick persons?

Mr. Elliot: I think the first thing is to deal with the Bill already before the House.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Minister of Health what would be the cost of enabling all pre-1924 widows to receive a widow's pension at 60 years of age?

Mr. Elliot: Provision more generous than that suggested in the Question already exists. Under the Contributory


Pensions Act, 1929, the widows of men of the insurable class who died before 4th January, 1926, were given a title to pension on attaining the age of 55. I have not extracted figures relating to the cost of these pensions in view of pressure of work.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the insured widow of an uninsured man who died 20 years ago would come within the purview of this Act?

Mr. Elliot: Anybody insured in his or her own rights would come within it.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Minister of Health whether women voluntary contributors are in any case included in the scheme of Part I of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The proposals contained in Part I of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill apply to women voluntary contributors who derive their title to voluntary insurance from previous compulsory insurance, but do not apply to women who are special voluntary contributors under the Act of 1937.

Sir W. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider making an early declaration with regard to the financial effect of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill on the expenditure of county and county borough councils in order that they may have a reasonable opportunity of preparing their estimates for 1940–41 with knowledge as to whether he will relieve them of all the present cost of supplementing old age pensions?

Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Bill and to the explanatory Memorandum attached to it. If there is any specific point on which he desires further explanation, perhaps he would be so good as to communicate with me.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAR CABINET COMMITTEE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the name of the Member of the War Cabinet who presides over the committee which is constantly sitting to deal with questions

connected with the Food Ministry on the one hand and the Ministry of Agriculture on the other?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal explained in the House on the 8th February, he is the chairman of the committee in question.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that from now onwards the Lord Privy Seal will be 100 per cent. responsible for the agricultural policy of the country. Is my right hon. Friend aware that what is worrying the country is that the Minister of Agriculture has a policy and no power while the Lord Privy Seal has power but no policy?

The Prime Minister: Like many epigrams, that is not true.

Mr. John Morgan: Will the Lord Privy Seal have executive authority and not be a mere co-ordinator?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

RENTS OF HOLDINGS.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to prevent a landlord either during or at the change of tenancy charging an increased rent for land on which residual values still exist for slag, lime, drainage and ploughing-up subsidies?

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. The rent payable for an agricultural holding is determined by the terms of the contract of tenancy, subject to any change that may be mutually agreed upon between the parties concerned. Under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, however, either the landlord or the tenant may make a demand for arbitration as to the rent to be paid for the holding as from the next ensuing date at which the tenancy could have been terminated by notice to quit given by the landlord, or tenant, respectively, at the date of the demand. If the demand is agreed to, the question as to the rent is referred to arbitration.
The Act also provides that, in determining what rent is properly payable for the holding, an arbitrator shall not take into account any increase in the rental value which is due to improvements executed wholly or partly by, and at the


expense of, the tenant. I am advised that such improvements would include the residual values to which the hon. Member refers. The question of the rent to be paid on a change of tenancy of a holding is one for agreement between the landlord and the incoming tenant.

Mr. Morgan: Does that answer include the undertaking given by the Minister last night that an attempt will be made to prevent a landlord taking up a subsidy granted by Parliament?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have not the words of the undertaking before me, but I think the answer I have given meets the hon. Member's point.

SUGAR-BEET.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the approximate number of acres of sugar-beet offered up to the 1st February for the 1940 contract compared with the corresponding figures for 1939; and what is the acreage desired by the Government for the coming season's crop?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Contracts received by the British Sugar Corporation up to the week ending 3rd February covered approximately 252,000 acres. The acreage contracted for at the corresponding time last year was 320,000. The Government hopes that as part of the programme of increased food production an increase of 50,000 acres over last year's acreage may be secured.

Mr. Morgan: Does that mean that the Government are already 100,000 acres behind in their sugar-beet contract; and, if so, what reason is to be ascribed for this?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The acreage of sugar-beet for 1939 was 340,000 acres; and the acreage aimed at is 390,000.

Mr. Morgan: So that you are 100,000 acres behind? A very serious position.

Sir J. Lamb: Is it not a fact that acreage is purely a matter of contracts?

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to prevent a likely drop in contracted acreage for sugar-beet for next season, and as an inducement to farmers to size up the required acreage, the Government will themselves take complete responsibility

for getting the beet lifted at harvest time by military and other special labour arrangements at the time, good production being assured by farmers only being paid for the beet grown on their delivery at the sugar factory on a quantity-plus-quality basis as now?

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is not practicable for the Government to take complete responsibility, as suggested, for the harvesting of any particular crop, but the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Agriculture will do everything possible to secure that sufficient labour is available for sugar-beet lifting.

Mr. Morgan: Do not the Government realise that it is precisely this labour difficulty which accounts for 7,000 acres of sugar-beet being still in the ground and the 100,000 acres for which farmers are not contracting? Why not contract to lift it and then every contract would be signed?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The uncertain conditions of war-time make it impossible to give any firm guarantee. For instance, the Government could not guarantee that soldiers would be available at any certain time.

Mr. Morgan: I do not mean soldiers in the literal sense, but that you should guarantee to get the sugar-beet out of the ground.

FOXES.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the bad effects of the increasing destruction of poultry by foxes in many rural areas, he will advise farmers, smallholders and poultry keepers to destroy these vermin by shooting or any other satisfactory method, and so preserve essential food from being wasted?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend has been in close touch with the Masters of Foxhounds Association on the subject to which the hon. Member refers. He understands that the association, with a view to protecting the interests of the poultry industry, has taken special measures so as to reduce the fox population by hunting or in other ways in order to prevent damage. The position has been kept constantly under review and my right hon. Friend is continuing to watch it closely.

Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware that many poultry keepers in the county of Durham do not put out their poultry until late in the forenoon because of the depredations of foxes? Why consult the hunting people? Why not consult the poultry keepers and the smallholders; and deal with foxes as you would with any other pest—destroy them?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have already told the hon. Member that special measures are being taken.

Mr. Leslie: What special measures?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Measures other than hunting.

Mr. J. Morgan: Why not give to poultry keepers the oats which now go to the horses of hunters?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Does the reply mean that every possible measure is being taken to keep down foxes which destroy poultry?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is what it means.

RATS AND MICE.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the latest estimate of the loss in agricultural production caused by rats and mice; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the present methods of extermination, he will have the present regulations amended so as to enable war agricultural committees to require farmers to deal with infested premises within a specified time, and in case of default to enter the premises and themselves deal with the pest at the expense of the occupier?

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the French corps, unpaid, known as Lieutenants de Louveterie, whose duty is the extermination of vermin, including rats, when the occupier of the land or building is unable or unwilling to cope with the situation; and whether, in view of the fact that the Ministry do not favour the provision of paid rat-catchers to carry out this skilled work, he will now reconsider his decision in the matter, or consider this and alternative methods of achieving the desired results?

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is impossible to give a reliable estimate of the loss in agricultural production caused by rats

and mice but it is undoubtedly very serious. My right hon. Friend has no knowledge of the French corps to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. As regards the powers for dealing with rats, local authorities possess certain powers under the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, and powers are also conferred on my right hon. Friend by Regulation 63 of the Defence Regulations. These powers are not entirely suited however to the needs of the case and my right hon. Friend is considering the desirability of amending and widening the scope of the regulation.

Sir P. Hurd: Does that mean that in all probability war agricultural executive committees will be given the powers that they need?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am not quite sure of what my right hon. Friend proposes to provide in the regulations.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it not a fact that foxes are the greatest enemy of rats and mice?

Mr. J. Morgan: Cats.

Sir J. Lucas: May I send the Minister particulars of the French corps?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I shall be much obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend will do so.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that several local councils have arranged to supply rat poison, harmless to other animals, free to farmers and others to get rid of their rats and save food; and whether he will take steps to get other councils to follow their example?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is aware of the steps taken by certain local councils in supplying rat poison free to farmers. He is anxious that all possible steps should be taken to encourage the destruction of rats and the whole question of an intensive campaign for the purpose is under consideration in conjunction with the other Government Departments concerned.

Sir J. Lamb: Will my right hon. Friend see that poisons which are advertised as poisons for rats are really efficacious, since some of them at the present time definitely cause immunisation?

ANIMAL FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as farmers cannot obtain even 20 per cent. of their requirements of straight-run feeding-stuffs based on their consumption figures for last year, although supplies of compound cubes and so-called mixed meals are available, he will confer with the Minister of Food and the chairman of the Animal Feeding-Stuffs Board, with a view to ensuring that the allocations in respect of feeding-stuffs are made contingent on the merchants and distributors handing on a substantial percentage of these allocations as straight-run feeding-stuffs to farmers?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The supply of straight-run feeding-stuffs to farmers has already been the subject of discussion between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food and it has recently been decided to issue a further circular to the Feeding-Stuffs trade with the object of ensuring amongst other things that an adequate proportion of the available supplies are released to farmers in the straight-run form.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in connection with the processing of wheat at the port mills which provide feeding offals from the wheat for pigs and poultry, the allocation goes entirely to the large milling combines, and that the present system of distribution is grossly inequitable and wholly unsatisfactory?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am not aware of that.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the larger increase in the numbers of livestock now coming forward to the market, he will confer with the Minister of Food and the chairman of the Animal Feeding-Stuffs Board with a view to issuing some statement as to the relations of these increases to the shortage of animal feeding-stuffs, in view of the reports which are being issued from a large number of agricultural areas of an increased number of animals being slaughtered for lack of feed?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The increase in the number of animals coming forward for sale for slaughter is due to marketings in more normal proportions following upon

the short supply in recent weeks consequent upon the severe weather and the adjustment in marketing arrangements necessitated by the introduction of Government purchase of fat stock. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the bulk of these animals are sent under force majeure for lack of feeding stuffs? Will he tell the House by what right the Minister has fixed the prices for these livestock under the cost of production? The whole thing is absolutely unjustifiable.

Mr. Ramsbotham: My information is that not much of the premature marketing is on account of lack of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will have a word with me on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING OF CIVIL POPULATIONS.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that His Majesty's Government will not assent to the suggestions made to them to abandon those principles which led them to denounce the bombing of civil populations in Spain and elsewhere and embark upon such a policy themselves?

The Prime Minister: I am unaware of the suggestions to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter was fully stated by myself in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) on 14th September last. In the course of that answer I said that whatever be the lengths to which others may go, His Majesty's Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women, children and other civilians for purposes of mere terrorism. I have nothing to add to that.

Miss Wilkinson: Could I ask the Prime Minister whether the man who put this Question down is not the man who defended his friends when they bombed open towns in Spain?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SECRET SESSION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make it clear that


the alleged report of the Secret Session of this House in the "Hamburger Fremdenblatt" is a complete fabrication and bears no relation to the facts; and that no disclosure has been made or printed in any journal?

The Prime Minister: The only report of the proceedings at the Secret Session of this House on 13th December is the one issued under the authority of Mr. Speaker. I am confident that there has been no disclosure of the proceedings of the House at the Secret Session, and it will be evident to any hon. Member who was present that the article referred to in the Question is not based on any authentic information as to what was then said but has been put together purely for propaganda purposes.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not the case that while the article in question was not accurate it was much more interesting than what actually occurred?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIES' WAR AIMS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to amplify at an early date the principles expressed by himself and other members of the Government respecting the basis of a desirable peace settlement which would secure the essential objective of the war?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah), on the 31st January last, to which I have nothing at present to add.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the Prime Minister considered the general peace terms described by the Labour party? Can he say how far he agrees with them as a desirable basis of a peace settlement?

The Prime Minister: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMON LAND (ENCLOSURE).

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken to ensure that every proposal for the enclosure of common land which requires his approval under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, is submitted to him, and his approval obtained, before the enclosure is made?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to be aware of any proposed enclosure of common land to which the Section referred to by the hon. Member would apply unless and until he receives an application for his consent. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware the erection of any building or fence, or the construction of any other work, whereby access to land to which the Section applies is prevented or impeded, is not lawful unless my right hon. Friend's consent is obtained, and appropriate legal remedies, where his consent is not obtained, are provided by the Section in question.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the fact that no application was made last year, while in each of the preceding years a substantial number of applications was made; and that he should consider some means whereby we can keep a check on unauthorised encroachments?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Member's Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

PIG AND POULTRY-KEEPING.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to emphasise the importance which the Government attach to increased food production at home, he will ask the local authorities concerned to say what action they have taken upon his recent circular regarding poultry and pig-keeping in their areas?

Mr. Elliot: For the reasons given in my replies to earlier Questions by my hon. Friend on this subject, I do not feel that I should be justified in following the course which he suggests, especially in view of the great pressure on the staffs of local authorities at the present time. I would point out that the circular refers primarily to the keeping of poultry and pigs on the housing estates of the local authorities themselves, and that the bylaws of local authorities do not in general place any restriction on the keeping of pigs and poultry except that of cleanliness.

Sir P. Hurd: Cannot my hon. Friend devise some more effective means of supporting the Government's policy in regard to home production?

Mr. Elliot: It is very desirable that these matters should be drawn to the attention of local authorities, but I think my hon. Friend knows the jealousy of local authorities regarding too much crowding-in by the central authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: What is the use of encouraging people to keep poultry and pigs when there are no feeding-stuffs for them?

Mr. Elliot: Pigs kept near a house get the advantage of having any household waste.

DEMOLITION ORDERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that local authorities, where final orders have been made under Sections 11 or 25 of the Housing Act, 1936, in respect of houses which are still occupied but where nothing remains to be done except re-house the tenant prior to demolition, are finding themselves in a difficulty, as they are debarred from insisting on even a mini mum standard of repairs, even if such repairs may be necessary for the health of the tenant pending his being re-housed; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking such action in the matter as will meet the case?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that in such cases local authorities are debarred from action under the Housing Acts but I would point out that their powers of requiring repairs under the Public Health Acts still remain.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHING HOSPITALS.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government, since the war, has assumed any control over the policy of the teaching hospitals, particularly with regard to the proportion of men and women students who are admitted?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. This is a matter which lies in the discretion of the teaching hospitals.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the financial support which the Government have been giving to voluntary hospitals since the beginning of the war, and the increasing need for medical personnel in the Armed Forces, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has arrived when he should make representations to

the voluntary hospitals in order that both sexes should have equal facilities for medical education?

Mr. Elliot: The voluntary hospitals are jealous of their rights in the matter, but certainly I take note of what the hon. Lady has said.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Is it not well known that the schools belonging to the voluntary hospitals are quite separate from the hospitals?

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that the great majority of London hospitals take no women medical students, and that therefore, there is likely to be a great shortage as the need for male doctors increases?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that arises out of the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALVAGE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether any steps have been taken to oblige local authorities to introduce methods of collecting and utilizing household food refuse, waste paper, tins, etc., on the lines of the system practised at Tottenham and in certain other areas; and how many local authorities have, in fact, introduced the systematic collection and utilisation of such products?

Mr. Elliot: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is, through his officers, in touch with local authorities, voluntary agencies and industry on the question of the fullest practicable utilisation of waste materials contained in household refuse. The question of requiring local authorities to adopt specific methods of collection and disposal is being worked at but it will be appreciated that local conditions vary and no standard scheme of collection and disposal could be applied to all districts. I understand that in November slightly over 300 local authorities were doing salvage work in greater or less degree; since then the number has practically doubled, and according to the latest information local authorities representing a population of not less than 25,000,000 people have some form of salvage work in operation. This includes 70 local authorities who have special refuse separation plants for the recovery of waste products from domestic refuse. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is taking active steps to stimulate the remainder.

Miss Rathbone: While recognising the progress indicated by the Reply, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that national interests demand that the matter should not be left simply to the initiative of the local authorities and their energy or lack of energy, but that they should be required to introduce some such system and that the process should be speeded up?

Mr. Elliot: I agree that there is a great necessity for the utmost energy in this matter, but in the first place we want to go as far as we can by co-operation with the local authorities, and I am glad to say that in many cases that is being given.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is there any policy for the classification and treatment of these waste commodities when they are collected?

Sir W. Davison: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would have been better to make arrangements with the local authorities for the collection of these things before appealing to the public to gather them together, since there is great dissatisfaction among people who have taken the trouble to separate their refuse, to keep paper separate, and so on, and then have seen it all thrown together into the dust-carts?

Mr. Elliot: I think many of the London boroughs have been rather laggard in making arrangements for the collection of this refuse which has been gathered together by individuals, and my right hon. Friend and I are addressing a letter to them on this subject.

Sir P. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if necessary, obtain powers from the House to compel the local authorities to carry out their duties in this respect?

Mr. Elliot: I should like to see how far we can get by co-operation with the local authorities before bringing in such legislation.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the question of the necessary dustbins being provided so that there will not be an additional expenditure thrown upon households?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (SICKNESS BENEFIT).

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Health whether, owing to the increased expenditure required for the necessaries of life, he will consider the urgency of an early amendment of the National Health Insurance Act with a view to the increase of sickness benefit to such a figure as to provide members of approved societies suffering from illness with sufficient means to meet their everyday needs?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. The benefits provided under the National Health Insurance scheme are related actuarially to the contributions payable by employers, insured persons, and the Exchequer. I am afraid that I could not, at the present time, contemplate introducing legislation for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Dr. Little: May I ask whether something cannot be done in the near future to meet cases of chronic illness, where people who have been suffering for years have not sufficient to provide the means of livelihood to-day? I think the Government ought to take up that question.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the solution of that problem the establishment of a State medical service?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Central Advisory Committee has completed its consideration of any of the matters referred to it regarding the Royal Warrant of September last; and whether he hopes to be in a position to make a statement, or bring forward an amended scheme, at an early date?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The provisions of the Royal Pensions Warrant are being considered and discussed very carefully and in detail by the committee in a series of weekly meetings now being held. I take the view, in which the members of my committee concur, that the ground should be fully explored before any amendments of the Warrant are made. The hon. Member may, however, be assured that the matter will be expedited as much as possible.

Mr. Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea of when the committee will make a report on an amended scheme?

Sir W. Womersley: No, I could not give any idea just now. I want to go thoroughly into the Warrant.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications for special financial assistance received by the War Service Grants Advisory Committee at the latest available date; the number of applications adjudicated upon by the committee; the number of special allowances now in issue; and their weekly cost?

Sir W. Womersley: Up to 7th February, 1940, the number of applications received was 62,892. Grants have been made in 28,014 cases at an average rate of about 8s. per week. Grants have been refused in 20,542 cases; about 1,000 applications have lapsed; and the balance of about 13,000 cases are in process of investigation. The weekly cost of grants now in payment somewhat exceeds £11,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION (PERSONAL INJURIES).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the provisions of compensation to persons injured by enemy action on land and on sea are operating to the disadvantage of the latter class of injured persons; that delays are occurring in adjudicating upon claims; that uncertainty as to the provisions exists among seafaring persons; and whether he will take the appropriate action?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not aware that there is any such inequality of treatment as is suggested. I have in fact taken special steps to obviate delay in dealing with claims, and have caused the fullest information as to compensation to be furnished to the authorities of all ports.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only among the fishermen themselves but also among insurance companies and even among the members of the War Risks Advisory Committee, there is great confusion as to how these provisions are related to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and if I forward him correspondence which has passed on this

subject will he consider issuing a simple: leaflet, which will be easier to understand than the 32-page pamphlet published by the Government?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not aware of anything of the kind. I have had consultation with the trade unions which are representative of the men and with the owners' associations and with many other bodies, and none of them express anything like the dissatisfaction suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I give notice that, having regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and also the unsatisfactory nature of the reply which I anticipate in answer to Question No. 88, I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state the business for next week, and also for to-day?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. For next week the business will be:
Tuesday and Wednesday: Second Reading of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday: Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates, beginning with Ministry of Labour and National Service; Dominions Office, and Colonial and Middle Eastern Services. Report and Third Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Bill.
The House will not sit on Friday.
During the week we hope that there will be an opportunity to take the remaining stages of the Rating and Valuation Bill and to consider the Mental Deficiency (Scotland) Bill which has come down from another place.
On to-day's business, we desire to get the Committee stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Bill, to pass the Motion to approve the Governor-General's Proclamation of Emergency under the Government of India Act, to consider the India and Burma Orders, and to obtain the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill. The Agriculture Bill is being taken as the first Order, followed by the other business, in accordance with the agreement made


across the Floor of the House last night by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. We also hope that there will be an opportunity to-night to take the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates which were considered in Committee on 7th February.

Mr. T. Williams: If on Thursday next the Supplementary Estimates take a considerable time, will the right hon. Gentleman not bring on the Agriculture Bill for Report and Third Reading at a late hour?

The Prime Minister: We will try to meet the convenience of the House on that point. I think I can give that assurance.

Mr. Batey: I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that next Tuesday and Wednesday the Committee stage of the Money Resolution on the Old Age Pensions Bill, as well as the Second Reading would be taken. May I direct his attention to paragraph (b) of the Money Resolution, which definitely fixes the means test upon the old people? If we pass that in the Money Resolution, it means that we shall be debarred from raising that matter on the Committee stage of the Bill.

The Prime Ministers: The hon. Member must remember that two days are given for the Second Reading of the Bill, on which that question can be debated.

Mr. Batey: Yes, but after the Debate takes place on the two days the Prime Minister's proposal is to take the Money Resolution, which definitely fixes the means test on the old people and if we agree to that next Wednesday night, we cannot discuss it on the Committee stage.

Mr. Buchanan: On that point, may I ask the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member raising a point of Order?

Mr. Buchanan: No, Sir. It is on the question of business. Will the Prime Minister consider extending the time for the Committee stage? As he is aware, on this Bill there is a great number of general issues, but the main issue will be the question of a means test on old age pensions. As this Money Resolution deals with that point, and that point alone, and once passed it cannot be afterwards amended, will the right hon. Gentleman

not consider, seeing that it raises a fundamental issue, extending the time that will be given for the discussion of the Financial Resolution?

The Prime Minister: It is a question of dividing up the time allotted for the Bill, and that is a matter for discussion.

Mr. Gallacher: Will it be possible to put down an Amendment against a means test once the Money Resolution is passed?

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Committee stage of the Money Resolution at a late hour on Tuesday night?

The Prime Minister: It all depends on how the discussion goes. Those two days are allotted for the purposes which I have stated.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is a very important matter, that there will be a desire in all parts of the House to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, and, therefore, that it is highly improbable that we shall be able to reach the Money Resolution till a late hour? Will he give an assurance that if it is a late hour, he will consider giving further time?

Mr. Batey: On a point of Order. It was decided some time ago by a Committee which sat on the question of Money Resolutions that nothing should be put in a Money Resolution that would curtail debate. Here we are having the very thing done which that Committee recommended should not be done. What can we do in order to prevent this happening with this Money Resolution?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that question arises. The Money Resolution is no different from any other Money Resolution, and the only Amendments that will be in order will be those that do not go outside the Money Resolution.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of Order. Here is a case in which a very important and fundamental departure in principle is embodied in a Money Resolution, and if that Resolution be carried, we shall be forbidden to discuss that question, which touches over 50 per cent. of the Bill. Is it not undesirable to embody in a Money Resolution a principle of the Bill and thereby debar us from effective


discussion of it on the Committee stage of the Bill? Was it not in order to prevent principles of that kind being embodied in a Money Resolution, and the House being debarred thereby from discussing them, that we had the Committee which has been mentioned appointed some time ago. Further, may I respectfully submit that if this is done on an important occasion, a very great deal of friction in the House may arise, if it is felt that the desires of the Opposition are being thwarted by placing in the Money Resolution principles which ought to be discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will give me notice of that question, I will give a considered Ruling on it.

Mr. Kirkwood: Shall I be in order in putting down an Amendment against the means test on the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for me to answer.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1940.

Estimates presented for the Navy for the financial year 1940 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 52.]

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939).

Estimate presented of the further numbers required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1940 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 53.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Trade Boards and Road Haulage Wages (Emergency Provisions) Bill, without Amendment.

Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS WAR PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee (Progress, 14th February).

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 22.—(Provisions as to requisitioned land.)

4.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 16, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Provided that an owner by whom any sum is so payable may by notice in writing served on the Minister within one month after the date of a demand in writing by the Minister for the payment thereof elect to pay the said sum, together with interest thereon from the said date, by such number of equal annual instalments not exceeding five as may be specified in the notice, so, however that—
(i) the first such instalment shall be paid within one year from the said date; and
(ii) the rate of interest shall, in default of agreement between the owner and the Minister be fixed by the Treasury."
This is simply a repetition of a provision which occurs in Clause 14. It is true that the sums dealt with will probably be very much smaller in this case than in the other. On the other hand, they may in some cases be large, and as a rule they will be due from small men, who will find it quite impossible to raise large sums of money all at once.

The First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ramsbotham): This seems to be a very reasonable proposal, and I have pleasure in accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I beg to move, in page 16, line 39, to leave out from "Institution," to the end of the Subsection.
The Clause at present provides that in the case, for instance, of building land an owner who receives his land back after the war will not be charged on an improvement in the agricultural value of the land which has been made by the work which the War Agricultural Executive or its tenants have put into the land during the period of war and the year afterwards.
The purpose of my Amendment is to prevent that exemption occurring. It appears to me that if the community have in fact improved the land for agricultural purposes, the owners should pay for those improvements. Last night I moved an Amendment which would have made it possible for the Minister to retain that land, and this Amendment is moved in very much the same spirit. I think that the agricultural land of this country is an asset to the country and that it should be used for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, to produce food; and if some speculative builder has bought a piece of land, not for the purpose of agriculture, but for putting up buildings, I am not particularly interested in that.
If the community, because of the need of the country for food during the war, has improved the agricultural value of that land, I think the owner of the land should pay for that improvement. The land in any case is of so much greater value for building purposes, and this is a very small thing. The owner at present would probably have bought the land and left it absolutely derelict, as so much land around London is left at present. He is not interested in the small value that he can get for it from letting it to a farmer to grow food, and it has now to be taken out of his possession and used in the national interest for growing food. I do not see why that owner who is misusing his land now should be allowed by these words at the end of the Clause to continue to misuse the land after the war. If my Amendment last night had been accepted, there would have been no need for this Amendment, but as it is I strongly object to this licence to the speculative builder to misuse agricultural land.

4.16 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I hope to be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the proposal to leave out these words is not a reasonable one. He referred throughout to agricultural land, but it is to be noted that this Clause does not deal wholly with the acquisition of agricultural land. It deals with possession being taken of land and its use for agricultural purposes. In the present emergency of war it may be desirable to use for the production of foodstuffs land which was not suitable in normal times for that purpose. For example, as the hon. Gentleman men-


tioned, there is land in the neighbourhood of towns which is awaiting building development which cannot take place because of the war and on which a building scheme might have been about to take place, but which is not very good land from the agricultural point of view. The State in the exigencies of the emergency takes it over, and, on a long view uneconomically, uses it as agricultural land. It appears to the Government to be unreasonable at the end of the war to hand that land back to a man who has never had the slightest intention of developing it as agricultural land when the land was never suitable in peace-time for that purpose. To say that because the State has made use of it during the war for the production of foodstuffs the owner should pay the whole of the expenditure incurred by the State during the period of the emergency seems an unreasonable proposition. These words have been put in to meet cases of that kind.
It is not difficult to think of other cases which, equally with the case of 6uilding land, require to be excepted from the case where the State can reasonably make a claim. I will give an example that has occurred to me. Suppose an owner has 50 or 60 acres of land which is unsuitable for agricultural purposes. No agricultural produce is being grown there, but it is adjacent to some land which the State thinks it advisable to take and use for the period of the war. It is possible that the State might, for the purposes of the occupier whom it puts into the larger area of land, need to utilise the smaller area for putting up some form of building—a dairy, for example—which would be of no use to the owner of the smaller piece of land when it is handed back to him. It would be very unfair if the owner of the 50 acres, which it might be impossible to use in connection with the dairy, should have the dairy premises planted on him without any means of making any use of them. These are the kinds of instances which, in our view, make it necessary to include a provision of this sort. The principle which is embodied in these words was applied continuously in dealing with claims against landowners which arose after the last war. I do not think there was an exact legislative provision of this kind, but this principle was embodied in every arbitration. By putting these words in,

therefore, we are doing nothing in practice which was not done in the course of the last war. Probably even without these words the arbitrators would interpret the obligations that lay on them of determining increased value by reference to the principles to which I have referred.

Amendment negatived.

4.21 p.m.

Sir Lindsay Everard: I beg to move, in page 16, line 43, at the end, to insert:
including any use other than agriculture.
It would appear from what the learned Solicitor-General has just said that this point is covered. He has pointed out that land taken over may not necessarily be agricultural land and that the owner may prove that the land is no use to him for agricultural purposes. It might be building land, or part of a playing field, or of an aerodrome. That should be taken into consideration and the owner should not be charged the extra amount which it had cost to turn it into agricultural land.

4.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that I cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendment, which goes too far in the other direction. We have laid down in the provision that the arbitrator is to have in mind
any reasonable use to which the owner proves that he intends to put the land.
The words which my hon. Friend wishes to include would enable the landowner to allow his land merely to go derelict and to become a rabbit warren, or a place for shooting. When my hon. Friend reflects on it in that light I think he will see that that would not be reasonable. When the State has expended money on improving the agricultural value of land and the landowner wishes to make some use of the land after the war, which is unreasonable in the light of that expenditure, it is not unfair that he should be asked to pay some part of the cost which has been incurred in restoring it as agricultural land.

4.24 p.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I do not think the Solicitor-General has quite understood the Amendment. We only want to make sure that the phrase "any reasonable use" will apply in such cases as land which is building land or part of


a playing field. Land which is allowed to become a rabbit warren would be an unreasonable use of the land.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for making the point a little clearer. The instances he gave are, of course, cases of reasonable use. All that I intended to say was that the inclusion of the words in the Amendment would do what he and I would agree would be unreasonable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.25 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: It seems to me that this ought to have been an important Clause of the Bill because there is a great deal of land which is not being used to the best advantage. The Clause is intended to deal with the worst types of that land, where the owner-occupiers, chiefly owing to financial difficulties, are incapable of making even a small use of the land. I am afraid that the directions which have been sent out to the committees concerned have minimized the possible use of this Clause, and it will be difficult to those who will have to administer it to make very wide use of it. There is a great deal of land which could produce enormously more than it does now, and I believe that if the war goes on the Government will have to take additional powers to deal with this problem. There is ample knowledge on how to treat derelict land. There are experts who know how to do it in Wales, on the moors of Scotland and on the downs in the Southern counties. This Clause, however, will deal only with the really glaring cases of neglect. The land which is considerably under-farmed and where the output could be three or four times the amount it is will not be touched, and it is that type of land which needs a much bigger provision. We accept this Clause, although we believe it to be an inadequate contribution to a vast problem.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not welcome -Clause 22 because it cannot, even combined wtih Clause 24, go nearly so far as the Government already had power to go under Clause 2 of the Agriculture (Land Utilisation) Act, 1931. They will

do less under these two Clauses than they could under that one Section which is already Statute law. I agree with the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) that the Government are merely toying with the problem. This is a continuation of typical Tory legislation. They find that a person is deliberately neglecting his land—because the condition before the State can take possession is that he is not cultivating it in accordance with the rules of good husbandry—and then, having taken possession and used fertilizers, machinery and the latest science to recondition the land in order to restore its fertility, the Government hand it back to the negligent farmer or owner and then starts to claim by a very tedious process some compensation for the improvement which the Government have made in the land. It is a ridiculous proceeding. I could have understood Clause 22 if the hon. Member's Amendment yesterday had been accepted. This would have provided that where land is taken over because of the neglect of the owner to restore its fertility the Government should retain possession for an indefinite period and so teach the owner a lesson. Although we are bound to accept the Clause, I do not think it will do anything like what the Government expect of it.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: What situation does the Minister think will arise if, on the decision being taken to hand over the land and the assessment of the improvement having been made, the landlord or farmer is unable to pay the charge? Does testate then re-enter into possession of the land?

Colonel Burton: Who knows whether this scheme is absolutely final?

Sir Joseph Lamb: What will happen if the land happens to be in a worse state when it is handed back again?

4.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I do not agree with the argument of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) that the Clause is too narrowly drawn. The Clause is wide enough to enable Ministers to take possession of land not being cultivated or not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry. In regard to the handing back of the land,


perhaps hon. Members will look at Subsection (7) of Clause 22. As to the point about what will happen if the man is unable to take it back, that does not apply, of course, during the time of emergency, but there would be the power to sell the property.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 24.—(Expenses of Minister in providing goods and services required for agriculture.

4.32 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: I beg to move, in page 17, line 39, after "purposes," to insert:
and where such facilities are provided by way of short-term loans, the rate of interest charged shall not exceed 1 per cent. over bank rate.
The point of this Amendment is obvious. It deals with the rate of interest that should be charged. To make out the case one must understand, or at any rate discuss, what kind of financial assistance can be given under the Clause. When first I saw Clause 24 I thought it was one of the most hopeful Clauses in the Bill. It gives the Government complete power to do almost anything they think necessary to help agriculture to raise quickly the production of foodstuffs in this country. They can provide the necessary appliances and the finance. There is no limit to what they might be able to do if they considered it necessary. So far as I know, it is impossible for any industry, and less possible for agriculture than for any other, to increase its productive capacity without an outlay of capital. I was therefore very disappointed on the Second Reading when I heard the Secretary of State for Scotland limit and qualify the intentions of the Government with reference to the use of the Clause.
He said, among other things, that it was not intended to supersede—I gathered that it was not intended to extend—the sources at present available for short-term credits. I do not know that the present short-term credits have been very widely used. There are difficulties. If it is granted that, in taking a short time to get a bigger agricultural production in

the near future you must put more capital into the industry, it is obvious that further finance must be provided. Perhaps the Minister will argue that many of the Government's proposals, including this Bill and those which have already been passed, will assist the agricultural industry financially. That is true, but more capital for the industry will be provided only in the course of some little time. It will take two or three years before the agricultural industry can be better off financially as a result of the arrangements which the Government have already made. If they want a larger agricultural production in the immediate future the Government have to make it possible for that unfortunately large number of needy farmers in this country to spend the money which is necessary to get the appliances which they need upon a far wider scale than that suggested by the Minister in his Second Reading speech.
On that occasion, the Minister mentioned that such credits as they were prepared to give were to be made on a commercial basis, and he suggested a rate of interest of 5 per cent. I was particularly sorry to hear him say that. Many of us feel, in present conditions when the bank rate is at 2 per cent., that the banks could lend money on good security to farmers at a rate of interest less than that which is allowed at present. If it is to go out from this House from a Minister of the Crown that he regards 5 per cent. as a suitable rate of interest for the Government to arrange for the farming industry, what hope has the ordinary farmer who goes to his banker and asks for his interest to be reduced to 4 per cent. or, where the security is good, to 3½ per cent., a rate which, in some cases, would be quite justifiable?
As to the Amendment, it is difficult for me to see my way clearly, because of your Ruling, Sir Dennis. The Amendment is part of a series, of which one or two are in front of this one and one follows. They really hang together. You have not called some of the earlier Amendments. You possibly judged them to be out of order on the ground that they might increase the charge. I should like respectfully to submit that, in my view—for what it is worth—it is doubtful whether those Amendments would increase the charge. Clause 24, as it is drawn, seems


wide enough to enable the Government to do almost anything it desires in regard to agriculture. If that be so, I can only hope that the Government will reconsider this matter and that, later in these proceedings, we may have a statement from the Government Front Bench that the Government are prepared to make use of Clause 24 to a much wider extent than the Minister mentioned and that 5 per cent. was never intended to be anything like a standard or an example to be followed in other directions. I should like the Committee to bear in mind that, some time ago, it was considered necessary that the railways should do certain work for the public welfare and that a large loan was put out on that occasion and guaranteed by the Government at 2½per cent. At the present moment, we want the agricultural industry to do something for the public welfare, and we should and could give it every possible financial facility.
The last point is, who is to lend this money to the farmers? I suppose that the agricultural committees will sanction the loan and recommend it and then, presumably, the money will be given by the banks, who will get the 5 per cent. If that is to be the procedure, it is practically lending the money at 5 per cent. with a Government guarantee, and therefore, the Government cannot avoid responsibility. If the Government are to provide this money, they should do so on more favorable terms.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Colville: The Clause enables funds to be provided for a scheme, but it does not lay down the scheme. It would be unwise to accept a limiting Amendment, even if the Clause laid down the whole of the rates of interest, because the Clause would then not give sufficient power to enable Ministers to take such action as was necessary. That action would be taken by means of a scheme. The scheme that is in mind for England and Wales does not contemplate a loan of cash, but the purchase by agricultural committees of the requisites necessary for the farmers' ploughing-up campaign or for the financing of services, such as harvesting, that have to be undertaken by outside contractors. In cases where the agricultural committee is satisfied that these services are necessary it enables the

farmer to have them. The farmer has then to make an agreement with his committee regarding repayment.
My hon. Friend expressed the opinion that a rate of interest of 5 per cent. was too high. I am prepared to dispute it. I do not think that, as a commercial rate, it is too high. The difficulty, in my experience, with a farmer or a small business man, is not the 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of difference in the rate of interest of the loan, but the fact that he cannot get the money or the service at all. The whole purpose of the Clause, and of any scheme made under it, is to get the services performed. My hon. Friend shakes his head. Does he agree?

Mr. De la Bère: Very definitely not.

Mr. Colville: If the total cost of the services was £40 or £50 or something of that sort, one would see the importance of being able to get the services carried out or to get the requisite supplies. The Government wish to frame a Clause to enable them to make schemes and to try to meet the clamant and urgent need, and in my view the clamant and urgent need is not the very small amount which would be represented by the difference between 5 and 3½per cent. but the fact of making the services available. So I hope the Clause will not be limited by any limiting Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: If the requisite service was a service of labour, and the farmer could not without financial assistance afford to employ the requisite service of labour, how would the Clause help him?

Mr. Colville: I was thinking rather of a contractor perhaps providing a tractor. Then it can be done, because the committee can arrange for the service and arrange to be recouped for the amount spent on it. But also it would be largely used, in my judgment, in the provision of equipment for the purpose of the ploughing-up campaign. It is desired that the Scottish farmers, equally with those in England, should be able to overcome any difficulties occasioned by lack of funds and credits, but there are differences between the two countries as regards the law, and also perhaps in banking practice, and in dealing with the farming community banking practice is a little difficult. Discussions with the banks in Scotland are proceeding and, when they get a little further, I shall lay down the


lines of the scheme for Scotland as quickly as I can. A number of banks cater for the small farmer. I am anxious not to dry up sources of credit but to find an opportunity for farmers who cannot, through bad luck, get facilities at all and put them in the position of getting facilities. I hope my hon. Friend will see that to limit the Clause in the way he suggests, though it might on the face of it seem beneficial, would not really be advantageous. We would rather leave it in the way it is left, as wide as possible, to enable the Minister to frame such schemes as may be necessary to help this particular aspect of agriculture.

Mr. De la Bère: My right hon. Friend mentioned facilities. Will he tell us, if these facilities are to be made available, why the little man and the little woman should not receive the facilities together at as low a rate of interest as would be given to other concerns which engage in helping forward the prosecution of the war? Why should they have to pay more? It does not seem equitable. I do not think there is any answer to it but I shall be grateful if he would give me an answer.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I am bound to say that I share the dissatisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) as to the explanation that he has received in regard to this Clause. I have not the slightest doubt that, as far as the larger farmers are concerned, and those who have financial resources behind them, the Clause will not have any operation whatever. They have probably got their financial arrangements and they are in a condition to carry out what the war agricultural committees require them to carry out without having recourse to the Clause. But what is happening in a county where large estates have changed hands in the last quarter of a century and the farmers are still suffering for the prices that they have paid for their farms and have never been able to earn sufficient to pay off their mortgages? They are being called on to plough up land and do a number of other things, and the question immediately arises how in the world can they do if? Their banks will not give them any other facilities.

Mr. Colville: This will in fact enable them to do it. The only point at issue is the rate of interest.

Mr. Spens: Their present borrowing facilities are of no use to them whatever. They are still in debt to their banks. In my part of Kent most of them are still up to the hilt in overdrafts, and they are probably in debt to their merchants. Then comes the Clause in this Bill on which we are all relying to help them. It is true that the arrangement is that there is to be finance, provided either direct by the Government or through the banks supported by the Government, in order to secure that there shall be tractors, machinery or services so that they can get the necessary work done. But what I am not clear about is what they are to be called upon to pay back, and that is the thing that is going to concern them. As I understand it, the machinery is not to be theirs. Presumably they are not to be called upon to pay back the capital cost of the machinery. The machinery is to be used on their farms. In fact it is being used by contractors all round using Kent. My house, which stood in green fields eight months ago, is now surrounded by ploughed land. I can hardly see grass anywhere. That has been done by contractors coming in and charging for their service in ploughing up, and a very reasonable amount has been charged provided the farmer has been in a position to pay it.
I understand that these small men are to be called on to pay out of the proceeds that come as the result of ploughing up, or whatever the agricultural operation is. What are they to have to pay? That is what we all want to know. I beg the Minister to make crystal clear to the farmers what they are to be expected to pay under this scheme. I apprehend that they are to have to pay back a fair sum for the use of the machinery or the services given them by the agricultural committees and, in addition, probably a sum in respect of interest on the capital sums which will have to be provided for the agricultural committees to buy the tractors, machinery and so forth which the agricultural committee is in possession of. [Interruption.] I am told that I am all wrong, and I am delighted to be told so, but I do not understand, and I have a feeling that possibly other Members may not. I believe this can be made a good Clause, and I do not honestly believe it makes very much difference whether the


depreciation sum that they have to pay is calculated at 2½, 3, or 5 per cent. What we want to understand is how the scheme is to work and what they are to be asked to pay. Are they to be asked to pay a reasonable sum for the service and the machinery, plus a sum which will be called interest or depreciation, calculated at some reasonable rate? Naturally, if it were calculated at a lower rate than that mentioned by the Minister, every small man in the country would be pleased, but we want to know what he is to be asked to pay, when he is to be called upon to pay it, and how the amount is to be calculated. If the Minister will answer those questions, we shall all understand the Clause very much better.

4.55 p.m.

Miss Lloyd George: The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the important point about the Clause and the Amendment was whether the farmers would be able to secure their requisites and services under the conditions laid down in the Clause. I think that everyone on all sides would be willing to stand or fall by that. It is, of course, the only thing that matters, and it is a thing of vital importance. But what hon. Members feel, I think, is that they are not going to be able to obtain their requisites or services on the terms offered in the Clause. The farmers are being asked to undertake a task of national importance. They are as anxious as any other class of the community to do their part in the national effort, but nothing is more certain than that, unless the Government give them more favourable credit, they will be totally unable to carry out their task and you will not get the increased production of food that you are anticipating.

Mr. Colville: I am not clear what the hon. Lady means by giving more credit. This is a proposal to give credit to those who cannot get it. The only point is whether it is going to be charged for too heavily, but that is a matter for adjustment. It certainly makes credit available. That is the whole point of it.

Miss Lloyd George: The whole point is the terms on which you are going to give them credit. The difference between us is that the Government think they will be able to get their credit to secure their

requisites and services, without which you cannot make the land productive or increase food production, at a rate which is obviously in excess of the rate proposed in the Amendment. The Secretary of State has certainly not told us that he is going to agree to the rate of interest that the hon. Member has proposed. You are not going to get the job done on the terms. The hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) has also pointed out that the Government lent £26,000,000 at 2½per cent. to the railway companies some time ago in order to reorganise themselves in the national interest. Here you are going to lend at 5 per cent. in war-time to an industry which is absolutely vital to the national interest. You are going to lend at 5 per cent. to an industry which has been neglected for years and which is so impoverished that it cannot carry on without Government subsidies. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last quoted instances that he knows of small farmers who are heavily mortgaged and who are in some cases unable to get credit because the dealers are closing in on them, and in some districts agriculture is in the hands of the banks and the dealers, and it is to this section of the community that the Government come along and say, "We have a very big job of work for you to do in the national interest, a job of work which may be vital to the final decision of the war, and we offer you 5 per cent. to assist you to do it."
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not yet formulated a scheme for Scotland, but I think that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture must have formulated his scheme for England and Wales, because I have here the circular letter which has been sent out from the Ministry to the war agricultural committees, which lays down the conditions under which they should be allowed to have credit. The right hon. Gentleman, I understood, said that there was no definite figure fixed for the rate of interest. Well, this letter makes it quite clear that the rate of interest is 5 per cent.

Mr. Colville: I said the scheme would provide proposals for a rate of interest, and I think I went on to say that all these schemes will be examined with the Treasury. I am sorry if I said there was not a figure fixed in the scheme. There is.

Miss Lloyd George: The scheme at any rate is perfectly clear as far as England and Wales are concerned. And not only are the farmers to be charged 5 per cent. but what are the terms they are to get? First, taking the fanner's undertaking to repay, he has to promise to repay the cost of the requisites, including insurance and freight, plus interest between the date or dates on which payments are made to suppliers and the date of repayment. Secondly, there is to be an authorisation in appropriate cases for deduction of the debt from the milk cherub or wheat deficiency payments where milk or wheat form one of the major sources of cash receipt on the firm; and thirdly, the fanner must assent to the reduction of the outstanding debt, in default of repayment at the due date, from moneys, such as subsidies, capitation grants or sums payable for farm products by the Government, and that includes, of course, payment for fat cattle and sheep as well. So the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making quite sure that what he gives with his right hand he takes away with his left. He is making absolutely certain of the terms of repayment.
More than that, a very important point is the period of time of the loan. I think it is true to say that in no case under the scheme is the period of time to exceed 12 months, that, in fact, the farmer has to repay when he is in receipt of the product of the succeeding harvest. That takes no account at all of the question of whether it has been a good harvest or a bad harvest. He has to pay at the end of the harvest after he has had the loan and, if he is unable to pay, his milk subsidy, or his meat subsidy, or his wheat subsidy, upon which at the moment he is literally depending, is going to be taken away. Those seem to me to be extremely hard terms. And, after all, the Government are giving this money as a loan on something which is absolutely secure. Unless the farmer is on the verge of bankruptcy, the Government are bound to get back its money, and in a very short time.
I thought when I originally read this Clause that its object was to assist the farmer to carry out the Government's scheme, to increase the production of food, but I cannot see how it is going to assist the farmer to any extent, if one judges by this scheme which has been

produced for England and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to produce a better scheme for his own country, but this is the scheme, as I take it, which is to be given to the farmers of England and of Wales, and I am absolutely convinced that it will be completely useless. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I would like him to tell the House how many farmers will be able to take advantage of it, or to whom it will be of the slightest assistance. I think that, unless he is prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, or something of the kind, or unless he is prepared to tell us that this letter which has been sent out as the policy and scheme of the Government will be withdrawn, then I cannot think that this Clause will be of any assistance at all.

The Chairman: May I say one word on this before we go any further? The Debate has necessarily extended beyond what one would expect to be properly in Order on this Amendment. I am making no complaint of it, because I think it was inevitable that it should be so. It means that goods and services, whatever they are, which are to be supplied come down in the end to the provision of money, and therefore create the question of the rate of interest on that money if the Government are to recover all that money. What I want to call the attention of the Committee to—and, as I say, I am making no complaint—is that, perhaps necessarily, the Debate has developed into a general Debate on the Clause, and I hope the Committee will consider that it is for their convenience to deal with it in that way, and that if I make no attempt to curtail this Debate, so long as it is relevant to the Clause, when we have disposed of this Amendment we should regard ourselves as having disposed of the Clause and there will be no further Debate on that.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I was rather surprised to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland make his reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), which obviously left every Member of the House in a great deal of doubt. The right hon. Gentleman knows exactly what is intended by the Minister of Agriculture. He knows exactly the limitations that they have placed upon these goods and


services. He knows the limit of the amount of money or goods and services combined which will be provided for on every farm. He will correct me if I tell him what in my view the scheme is, because it is clear the Committee ought to know. Is not it clear, after the agricultural executive committees have been advised and guided as to the administration of the scheme, that when a farmer requires seed there is no ready money, when he requires ploughs there is no ready money, and for every commodity which he needs on his farm no agricultural executive committee can make these purchases until an inquiry has been made and the farmer has entered into an agreement to pay the cost? If the farmer requires the services of a tractor there is no ready money, and no agricultural executive committee can supply the tractor. If the farmer requires the services of a threshing machine there is no ready money, and no committee can send along the threshing machine and pay the contractor's fee.
The limit of goods and services available to each farmer is £50, and this Amendment declares that instead of a rate of 5 per cent. interest the rate shall be 1 per cent. above bank rate. We will reduce it to its lowest common denominator. Suppose that £50 in goods and services is provided for a farmer, the agents of the Minister then pass the bill on to the war agricultural executive committee. Assuming that the £50 is outstanding for 12 months at 5 per cent. the interest charged to the farmer will be 50s., but if the interest were reduced under the terms of this Amendment the charge would be 30s. Therefore the Amendment would save each farmer who takes advantage of Clause 24 just £1 per annum.

Sir I. Albery: Will the hon. Member allow me to intervene so that there may be no misunderstanding? As hon. Members are well aware, it is not always easy to get Amendments put down and get them called. I do want to get a lower interest for farmers, but the Amendments were put down in order that I might raise the point that everything can be done under Clause 24, and practically nothing will be done.

Mr. Williams: I am not complaining of the hon. Gentleman's Amendments,

but I was just trying to explain what the scheme involves and how it will work out.

Mr. Colville: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to base his argument on a wrong figure. As to the £50 limit, that is what the committee can do without reference to the Minister.

5.11 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: The Clause would be adequate as it is except for one reason, and that is the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill about 5 per cent., and I did not want it in the Bill, but my right hon. Friend when he introduced the Bill suggested 5 per cent. or a commercial rate. Five per cent. is not a commercial rate, at least it is not one the farmers can pay. As he has already mentioned 5 per cent., I think that this Amendment should be put in, because 1 per cent. above bank rate is a great deal nearer that which a farmer can pay than 5 per cent. With regard to the £50, as I understand it, the committees can lend up to £50 without reference to the Minister, but above £50 they must refer to the Minister and get sanction to that.

Mr. T. Williams: Why does not the Minister tell us what the scheme really means?

Sir J. Lamb: I believe that the Clause as it stands is absolutely adequate. I believe it was a slip made by the right hon. Gentleman in mentioning 5 per cent. when he introduced the Bill. I ask him now to accept 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. above bank rate, simply to rectify the wrong impression he gave to the country when he suggested such a high rate of interest.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I think the whole Committee is agreed on one or two things. The first is that it is absolutely essential to grant, not a little new credit, but a very great deal of new credit to agriculture. Those of us who have a long and unfortunate connection with agriculture know that very well. As far as this Amendment is concerned, I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend opposite in his wish to see agriculture obtain credit at a very low rate of interest, and obviously if he can persuade the Government to give a considerable amount of credit at low interest to any


particular agriculturist it will do something to help him through his present difficulty. As far as I can understand, at present you are imposing on the agricultural committees the rather invidious job of saying who is, and who is not, to have the money. Up to £50, they can do it of their own accord, and after that another body will deal with the matter.
I am not quarrelling with this, but there are a considerable number of farmers who would find it a very valuable help if they could get up to £50, even if it were only for buying seed. We should give the Government credit for doing that. But the farmers need help, not only in buying seed, but also, in many cases, for buying or hiring tractors, and for paying wages between now and the time when they get their harvest. If the agricultural committees are able to deal with amounts up to £50, we should be told, either during the Debate or at the appropriate time, how we, as Members of this House, can be quite sure that the farmers are going to know that, beyond the £50, money will be fairly easily available for them.
I should like to refer to the very interesting and charming speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), who showed great knowledge of the subject. She said that agriculture had been greatly impoverished for some time. Unfortunately, we are only too well aware of that; but I should like to remind hon. Members that it is not much good always pouring a little water into a bucket if the bucket has no bottom. The reason for this impoverishment is not only the lack of good prices, but also the fact that for the last 30 years you have been draining money out of agriculture.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now going far beyond the Clause.

Mr. Williams: Of course, I was not intending to follow that up, Sir Dennis; I was merely using it as an example, to show how thankful we should be for the benefit we are getting at the present time. When we are reminded of the impoverishment of agriculture, we should remember who were the originators of that impoverishment, by their tax on agriculture.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I would ask whether, in attempting to deal with the credit position in agriculture by a comparatively

small and limited Measure, we should not be damaging that position, rather than improving it. You are going to make an instrument which will be a first charge on a man's enterprise. You may find the merchants, as a result, inquiring whether a man has secured such a loan. Then, if he finds that that is the case, the merchant will know that the first £50 or £100, as the case may be, of that man's return from an uncertain harvest is charged with some other body; and he may be very unwilling to advance further credits to such a man—certainly to the full extent of the man's credit. I see many merchants coming to a farmer and requiring him, before they will give him a new account, to go to the committee and get them to guarantee the account.

Mr. Colville: Is the hon. Member opposing the Clause altogether?

Mr. Morgan: No, but I want to put certain considerations before the Minister. As the Debate proceeds, we discover new features about this transaction. We discover that the committee are entitled to give up to £50, subject to very little in the way of conditions.

The Chairman: I would ask the hon. Member not to discover matters which have nothing to do with the Clause. I do not see anything there about creating a charge.

Mr. Morgan: With deference to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, the term "charge" is used in the Bill, and reference has been made to the fact that the man's income from milk or beef or other products will be charged by the committee in order to liquidate the amount of the loan. That has been said, I think, by the Minister in explanation of the transaction. Obviously, in such a case this will be a first charge. I can see damage being done to the already unsatisfactory system of credit for the farmer. Such a security, supported by the committee, enabling the committee to make a charge upon the debt—

The Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member more than is necessary, but I have pointed out that the whole question of charging has nothing to do with this Clause. The hon. Member's only defense now is to refer to other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: I will say only that I wonder whether by attempting, in this quite praiseworthy way, to deal with the problem of credit, the Government may not actually damage the position of the person desiring credit, without meeting the views of a lot of people who believe that the credit position as a whole needs to be properly tackled.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) cannot have read the scheme already issued with regard to England and Wales, which definitely fixes a rate of 5 per cent. He thinks the scheme is first-class, because he fondly imagines that the farmers will get credit, up to an apparently unlimited amount, at 1 per cent. If he is under that delusion, both he and his farmers will get a rude awakening in the near future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was a perfectly good prophet when he indicated that 5 per cent. would be the rate charged. As for Scotland, we shall have something to say before such a rate of interest is applied there. I do not think my right hon. Friend will get away with 5 per cent. from that country, and I do not think that he believes so himself. That may indirectly benefit the farmers of England and Wales also. For the life of me, I cannot see why 5 per cent. should be charged for a loan of this kind for a period of 12 months only, when you consider the general state of credit, and what the Government can borrow for.
I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) that the interesting point about this Clause is, what effect it may have upon the general credit of the farmers. A large number of the farmers are in the hands of the banks, and, in many cases, of the merchants. When I say "in the hands," I do not mean that the banks and the merchants are exercising an unfair, Shylock grip on them. I merely mean that substantial credits have been granted to them in recent years by the banks and merchants, without which they could not have carried on. I am sure the banks and the merchants will look at the Clause somewhat critically, and say, "What effect will it have on the general credit position of fanner A and farmer B? Does

it take precedence over credits that we may have given to them?" When they examine the scheme, they will say that it does take precedence.

Mr. Colville: Is my hon. Friend opposing the proposal that we should make the credit available?

Mr. Boothby: No, I am suggesting that it is unwarrantable to make the terms so stringent; to fix such a high rate of interest, and to insist on repayment in so short a period. The position of the farmers would not be affected if the terms were reasonable, but I suggest that the terms for England and Wales—we have not had those for Scotland—are not reasonable. I say, first, that 5 per cent. is too high, and, secondly, why are the terms of repayment so very severe, and for a period of 12 months only? The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) read out from the proposed scheme, going into the greatest detail.

Mr. Colville: She did not read it all out.

Mr. Boothby: I am quite sure that we shall all be greatly assisted if the First Commissioner, when he comes to reply, will go, in more detail, into the question of what these terms will be. We got very valuable information from the hon. Member for Anglesey. What justification can the Government put forward for charging 5 per cent. for a very short term loan? What do they pay for Treasury Bills at the present time? This is a credit, extended to farmers for doing perhaps the most important work that can be done in this country at the present time. I am sure that the feeling of the House is that 5 per cent., for only 12 months, is an exorbitant rate to charge farmers who are doing this vital national work.

5.30 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: There are one or two questions in respect of which I would be very grateful if I could have a reply. It seems to me that I am not alone in not fully comprehending the conditions under which money is to be loaned under this Clause. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) has indeed enlightened us very considerably, and—I speak for myself—has alarmed us very greatly by the details which she has given of the scheme for England and Wales.
While I fully support what the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said when he asked whether a further extension of time could be given, I would ask whether, under this Clause, implements are to be provided for the farmer upon payment of certain moneys. If the scheme is successful—and the right hon. Gentleman's whole contention is that the scheme will be successful—there will be a tremendous call upon certain farm machinery. If you own machinery it is entirely in your own hands when you do specific pieces of work, but if you hire machinery it is in the lap of the gods, especially to-day, as to whether the machinery will be available to do the work at the exact moment that it is possible for you to do it, either on account of labour or of the weather.
My knowledge of the present position with regard to the availability of farming machinery does not give me complete confidence that, if the scheme is responded to as the right hon. Gentleman assures us it will be, the machinery will in every case be available for the man who wishes to loan it at the moment at which he could make use of it, and yet he might involve himself in borrowing money at a usurious rate of interest. I find it difficult to control my language. Although I agree that you may borrow at 5 per cent. for certain things, even while we are sitting here this afternoon farmers all over the country are losing their capital. At this very moment, think of how many pigs are being slaughtered, and how many chickens, which were the farmer's capital and existed a few hours ago, no longer exist. That is his capital, and the industry in many instances is bleeding to death. That is not an exaggeration as the Minister of Agriculture told me the other day when I spoke of the slaughtering that is going on all over the country. He said I was exaggerating, but nothing that I have heard in the West Country in the last few weeks could lead me to retract one word or make me believe that I was in any way exaggerating. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman believes me when I say that I wish that I could have done so. I have not done so. None of us knows how far the slaughtering of livestock has to go.
At the present time we realise that we are up against very great difficulties.
We have to realise the position in which it has placed the farmer, and that his capital assets are going, and his credit facilities are already closing in upon him and are no longer available. This Bill, as the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) pointed out, instead of helping him may indeed make it even more difficult for him to obtain credit. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I await the explanation. I personally could never agree to 5 per cent. interest. I must know the conditions under which there can be an extension of the loan, and be assured that the machinery will be available for the farmer at the time that he requires it.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: I shall not be long, as I understand there is an arrangement with the party opposite to endeavor to get this Bill through as soon as possible, but, having regard to the great importance of it, we must not omit discussion of any of the important conditions. I for one would never dream of agreeing to 5 per cent. under this Clause. Credit is a fundamental necessity for agriculture, and it is vitally necessary that we should have creditor enable us to secure the maximum amount of food. When I read this Clause, I had some hopes that something was really going to be done, but I was soon to be very considerably disillusioned. What has taken place? I know what has taken place. The banks have been round very quietly, and the whole thing has been arranged without the House of Commons knowing one word about it. That is the cause of all our troubles to-day. Poorer and poorer grow the farmers and richer and richer grow the banks. That is an issue do not want to pursue, but it is true that the cause of all this is that the banks are not prepared to make their war effort for this country in the same way that the farmer is prepared to make his effort to grow food in times of national emergency. That is the plain and very unpleasant truth. If it were not the truth, how is it that we cannot have a reasonable rate of interest, perhaps 3 per cent.? But no, we have been told that it is to be 5 per cent. From whence could it have come? It could only have come from that quarter.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he does not realise that it is the Treasury that forces the bank?

Mr. De la Bère: I always give way to my hon. Friend because I have great regard for him, but I do not think that that is quite the point. I have put down two Amendments to this Clause, which I understand are not to be called, and I have to bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, as indeed we always do, but I am sorry, because those Amendments deal specifically with the very point which my hon. Friend has just raised, as to whether this should not be done under Treasury guarantee at not more than a half per cent. over the bank rate. But I will not deal with that as I might be out of order.
The question with which I want to deal is a very important one. I refer to the question of loans to railways of £26,000,000 at 2½ per cent. In 1935 we gave a loan to the Railway Finance Corporation of just over £26,000,000 at 2½ per cent. and the whole of that money was guaranteed, both as to principal and interest, by the Treasury. Let us see who these people were. There were four directors of this Railway Finance Corporation of £100 registered capital. They were four directors of the Bank of England. If these powerful people, the Bank of England and railway directors, can secure for themselves this money why then should not agriculture, which is trying to help the country forward to get the maximum output of food, and indeed to save this country, not have money at an equally favourable rate, guaranteed both as to principal and interest? I would ask the House to consider whether we could not all really get together. We are of different parties all round, but one day we may wake up to find that these little party differences matter nothing at all. It is England that matters, and the getting of food and the winning of the war.

Mr. Kirkwood: What about Scotland?

Mr. De la Bère: I shall never consent as long as I am a Member of this House to the farmer being charged 5 per cent. for money, especially as there is not the faintest or remotest possible excuse whatever in war-time for asking him to pay it.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Perhaps it may assist our proceedings if I intervene at this moment to elucidate one or two points that have arisen during the 'discussion of the last hour or so, and perhaps explain,

as well as I can, what is the object of the Clause which we are in fact discussing. The primary purpose of this Clause is to assist the ploughing campaign. In the great majority of cases the farmers who are putting land under the plough are able, in the course of business, to provide seed and tackle, either out of their own resources or through the accommodation to which they have been accustomed in the past. And there are, and will be, no doubt, a number of small farmers who will not be in that position. I envisage the case of a small farmer being called upon to plough up five or 10 acres. He will say to the war agricultural committee, "I am very sorry, but I have not the resources to purchase the seed for this purpose and the machinery and tackle, and my credit is not good enough to enable me to borrow the wherewithal with which to acquire these requisites." The committee will say, "Why worry? Wearer empowered by a Clause in this Bill to procure for you the seed which you need and the ploughing tackle which you require, so that you can go ahead and be in just the same position as the majority of other farmers who are able to procure these things for themselves." That is the primary object of this Clause.
It has been said during the Debate that it was unfair on the small man when you provide him with these requisites in the way described to charge him 5 per cent. for the accommodation instead of 3 per cent. I will make two observations with regard to that. There is a 2 per cent. margin as I have already indicated, or whatever phrase is used. I want to examine that proposition in a moment. In the first place, I am inclined to agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) that what is important not merely to the small farmer, but to any farmer is not so much the rate of interest that you pay, provided it is not an extortionate rate, but a margin of 1 or 2 per cent. on the ploughing tackle employed, as the prices you get and the security that you have for the sale of your produce.
Perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I give an instance to illustrate that point. I am dealing with the ordinary small farmer for whose benefit this Clause is primarily designed. I am taking the example of one ordered to plough up 10 acres of grassland in order to grow wheat upon it. The cost of producing the crop


might be put at £9 an acre. The farmer would receive a ploughing subsidy of £2 an acre, so that the net cost would be £7 an acre, or £70 for the 10 acres. If he borrowed money on a year's credit at 5 per cent. he would pay £3 10s. interest and if he borrowed at 2½ per cent. it would be £1 15s. If he borrowed at 3 per cent. it would be slightly more. If we take these two figures, something between £3 10s. and £2 10s., and compare them with the wide margin of what he is going to receive for his wheat, he has spent, on my calculation, £70. If we take the average wheat crop on 10 acres he would receive £100, that is, a £30 margin. It may not work out quite like that because of the weather, but I am not using the wholly extravagant language about the appalling burden which is placed on the small man. The first point I want to make, in regard to what has been said about the interest of 5 per cent., is that I do not think it matters as much as all that.

Mr. De la Bère: The real point is that there is no justification for it. It does not matter whether it is £3 10s. or £2 10s., why should he pay that 5 per cent.? It is no good illustrating with figures without taking into account the weather and other conditions. What my right hon. Friend has said is absolutely valueless.

Colonel Burton: Farmers would like to know are these loans to be registered or in any way disclosed to the public, or will they be kept privately between the borrower and the War Agricultural Committee?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My hon. and gallant Friend interrupted me on the point which has excited his curiosity. If you are going to make special terms for a small farmer, what is going to be the attitude of every other farmer? The majority of farmers in this country avail themselves of the ordinary commercial forms of credit. In certain cases where a small man does not possess that credit he is going to be given facilities to borrow at 5 per cent. Supposing it were 3 per cent. I think every other farmer would legitimately say, "Why should this concession be given solely to my neighbor of whose farming capabilities I have never thought much? He has not worked as hard as I have and why should we go on paying the ordinary rate while this man gets an especially low rate of interest?"

Mr. Boothby: Because the need is desperate.

Mr. Ramsbotham: When I see the difference on the figures I have given I say the need is not desperate.

Mr. Loftus: Will it apply to the small farmer?

Mr. Ramsbotham: It will apply to the small farmer who cannot provide the requisites to plough up the land that he ought to plough. If we are going to do that we might say that the only way of doing justice to the whole farming community is to give the same terms to every farmer whether he is credit-worthy or not, and reduce the rate of interest to 3 per cent. That is logically the position, but it is a big undertaking and involves another form of subsidy for the farming community.

Mr. De la Bère: So is the war a big undertaking.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I quite agree. That is the general atmosphere in which we ought to regard this proposal and the purpose for which it was designed. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss M. Lloyd George) asked about the period of repayment. This is stated in the scheme which is now in the hands of the war agricultural committees and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library. Normally the farmer is expected to discharge his debt as soon as he receives the proceeds from his succeeding harvest, but the payment period may be extended. That seems to be reasonable.

Earl Winter ton: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have been assuming all along that the farmer will necessarily get a crop of wheat. My experience of newly ploughed-up land is that it often produces no crop at all. What is going to be the position in this event?

Mr. Ramsbotham: If my Noble Friend is right we might just as well abandon the whole ploughing-up scheme. We must assume it is going to meet with a measure of success; otherwise it will be a disaster. I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey will agree that the terms are not unreasonable and that it is not unreasonable that the proceeds of milk or wheat subsidies should be earmarked to repay what the farmer has had from the State. I would like to say, in conclusion, that we are aiming at good, stable prices on which farming it will


not only secure credit, but also get cash in hand, so that it is no longer a borrower. I do not think it makes for good farming to encourage, by cheap credits, a large amount of borrowing. We are aiming at providing a good solid foundation with stable prices for each man if he has good credit. For the small man who is in difficulties it provides a fair and satisfactory solution.

Mr. Boothby: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the terms which he read out are so stiff that they are bound to affect the general credit of the small man? You are practically putting a lien on every subsidy he receives from the State. Why not make the terms easier and the time longer?

Mr. Henry Harlem: I do not quite understand, from the figures the right hon. Gentleman gave, the example that a small man should get a £30 crop. Is this after the loan has been repaid?

Colonel Burton: The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether this loan is to be registered.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The loan is made for the purchase of services of goods.

Colonel Burton: He will get no actual money. How can a farmer pay wages without money?

Mr. Ramsbotham: You cannot farm at all without money. This is for the farmer who has not enough credit to carry out the extra obligations imposed upon him by the scheme.

Colonel Burton: Is this only for the ploughing-up scheme?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is the primary object. If a farmer cannot carry it out, the Government will say to him, "Do not worry. We will finance the means for you to do it, and it is only reasonable that you should pay us back out of the proceeds of what you have earned." That is the whole proposition, and I do not think there is anything unfair about it.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that my question was extraordinary. What is to be the position of a farmer, small or large, who, having borrowed money on the security of a crop, gets no crop because of a bad season? Is he going to be allowed time for repayment? We ought to be assured

on this point. This is quite a different thing from a subsidy; this is a loan secured on something which might not eventuate.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think my Noble Friend quite appreciated the point I made in my opening remarks. I explained that in particular cases the payment period may be extended.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I listened with great interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend. I confess I think the Clause as printed is quite admirable. When read it first I thought its powers were so wide that it could be of immense assistance to agriculture and the production of food. But listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Second Reading and, still more, to the speeches delivered to-day, I find this large, generously worded Clause shrinking into very meager dimensions. The Secretary of State for Scotland said the Clause was so drawn that schemes could be framed in the widest possible terms, but every reference made to the scheme already framed shows that it is in an extremely narrow form. We have heard to-day that assistance under this Clause is confined entirely to work ordered by the agricultural committee to be done in connection with the Government's general scheme for ploughing-up. I think the words are,
Comply with the orders and directions issued by the War Agricultural Committee.
The first anomaly that strikes me is this: Money is advanced for specific work to comply with the orders and directions of the war agricultural committee but the liability, the repayment, is a charge on the whole production of the farmer. We have heard about this 5 per cent., but that is not the main point. I criticize, not the Clause, which is adequate, but the scheme. We have had a most interesting Debate on the scheme circulated by the Ministry to the war agricultural committees, and I do suggest that this Committee should have had that scheme issued to them. Every Member should have had a copy of it so that we could have thoroughly discussed the subject. I therefore enter a protest under that head.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I want to pursue the point which the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. J. Morgan) and the hon. Mem-


ber for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) raised. I am afraid that their arguments may be misunderstood. They suggested that the operation of the scheme may have the effect of damaging the credit of farmers with those persons with whom they may normally have been getting credit. I think that may be the case; and it is one of the reasons why I enthusiastically support the Amendment. In the scheme you say that a farmer must go to the war agricultural executive committee and say that he cannot get credit anywhere else, and he has to assure the people from whom he borrows that he comes to them as the last hope, that he has exhausted his credit at the bank. When he has done that you lend to him not at the same rate as he could have got from the bank, if the bank manager thought that he was credit-worthy. What have you done with that man? His merchant finds that he is taking a loan at a rate which he could have got from the bank.

Mr. Colville: The point is that he cannot get credit, and I cannot see any other way of financing the operation of the scheme.

Mr. Roberts: I hope I may be allowed to develop my argument. The farmer has got his loan and gone away. It will become known that he has got a loan and, therefore, everybody to whom he owes money will regard him as having admitted that he cannot get credit anywhere else. By taking a loan from the war agricultural executive committee he has admitted that he cannot get money anywhere else. If you make a small alteration in the scheme and reduce the rate of interest to, say, the same rate of interest as that of the bank, you do not destroy the confidence on which a great deal of credit is built up. After all, how is the war agricultural executive committee going to establish that the man could not get a loan anywhere else? In the scheme it is laid down that a farmer has to satisfy the committee that he cannot get credit anywhere else, but it is laid down that in no circumstances must the committee verify his statement by going to his bank or his merchant.

Mr. Colville: The scheme is for the man who cannot get credit, and I cannot see how a proposal to reduce the rate of interest is going to help.

Mr. Roberts: I certainly want to give the small farmer credit and on a much wider scale than is proposed. I suggest that by the condition which you have imposed, and by saying that you do not wish to interfere with existing sources of credit by charging a rather higher rate of interest, you are unreasonably destroying the credit of the farmer to whom you give a loan. I think you should set about the matter in a different way and say that you wish to reduce the rate of interest on loans to farmers at the present time, as they are far too high. They have to pay sometimes as much as 10 to 15 per cent. I received a remarkable document the other day from a machinery firm with whom I have done business for a long time, the largest firm in the district. In a bill they enclosed a note to this effect:
The international situation has entirely altered the whole basis of trade and has made it necessary for all merchants throughout the country to require their customers to discharge their accounts promptly.
That is the sort of thing they are sending out on the first occasion on which they render their account. They are giving no credit now. I was speaking the other day to an auctioneer who happens to be a farmer as well, and asked him what he paid for credit. He said that he had been paying cash in his fanning operations and that by the bonus he had received for cash he had saved 9½ per cent. I want to bring that 9½ per cent. down to 5 per cent. or 3 per cent. in order to help the farming industry. If you had a scheme which would deliberately reduce the general rate of interest and provide for fresh short-term capital in the industry you would not destroy the credit-worthiness of any farmer to whom you lend, and you would put some fresh vitality and life into the farming industry and do a great deal to make the ploughing campaign a real success.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I feel that the Debate has shown that very little is done by this Clause. When I read it first I had a feeling that here was an opportunity, in. time of national emergency, to bring as much credit at a reasonable rate of interest to the farming community as would enable them to produce to the: maximum at the present time. I was sorry to hear from the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Clause is to be confined to those who are credit-worthy


where credit was not available through the normal channels, and this afternoon we have had a further explanation of the Clause from the First Commissioner of Works. We have learned that there are further limits imposed by the scheme, of which at present we know very little. The First Commissioner of Works pointed out that this was merely to deal with a small amount of land; a small number of farmers who may be required to plough up a small amount of land under the Government's ploughing-up scheme. It is not worth wasting a lot of time about. All we are doing is to provide money from the national Exchequer when the banks, with expressions of patriotism running through the speeches of their chairmen, are not prepared to trust the farming community to the amount mentioned in the Debate—£70.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I am not a farmer nor have I any agricultural experience. My only right to intervene in the Debate is the duty on every Member of the Committee to try and understand matters on which he has to vote and to exercise judgment upon them. I have listened with great interest to the Debate and I propose to offer one or two observations on one aspect of the matter which I do understand, and that is the question whether the rate of interest should be 5 per cent. or 3 per cent. I have heard the whole of the arguments on that point and listened with great attention to the Minister's reply. He never attempted to bring his mind to a consideration of the arguments in favor of a lower rate of interest. When I examine the arguments which he addressed to the Committee it is apparent that he has never examined the matter with any seriousness at all. He made two points. The first, that the amount in dispute would be very small. He said that if you calculate the difference between what it would cost a farmer at 5 per cent. and what it would cost him at 3 per cent. the difference was so small that we need not bother about it. From what I have heard it seems to me that even if it is a small amount it may with more advantage go to the farmer than to the banks. The farmer is entitled to the benefit.
The First Commissioner of Works went on to say that the standard price was so fixed as to more than cover the amount

of the difference; in other words he said, "Do not bother the farmer about the difference, the consumer will pay, there will be a rise in prices in order that the banks may get the extra 2 per cent." That is not a good reason to me, and it is even less a good reason when we come to the second argument of the First Commissioner of Works. Having proved to his own satisfaction that the difference is infinitesimal and nothing to worry about, he went on to say that if you grant the small farmer this advantage, which is infinitesimal, then all other farmers will want it too and you will create a lot of confusion, jealousy and trouble. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If the difference is small it cannot have these important effects upon other people. If it is infinitesimal it will not disturb anybody. If, on the other hand, it is such as to lead other fanners to want it the Minister must abandon his argument that there is nothing in it at all. The arguments advanced by the Government in opposition to the Amendment are not serious arguments at all and I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

6.13 p.m.

Sir I. Albery: I want to say only that in moving the Amendment I wanted to get certain questions raised and to know the intentions of the Minister of Agriculture. The Amendment itself, especially in view of the use to which the Government propose to put the Clause, is of very little importance. The matter has been well debated and I hope that the First Commissioner of Works will draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to what has been said and that we may hope that greater use will be made of the Clause than is at present proposed. If greater use is made of the Clause it obviously must involve more capital, and then more attention will be paid to the necessity for a cheaper rate of interest for the agricultural community. In these circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Major Bathwater: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. and gallant Member must understand that if he rises to speak the Amendment can under no circumstances be withdrawn.

Major Bathwater: The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) has said that this is a small matter. There are


250,000 farmers in this country. Of those farmers, 175,000 are small men. My right hon. Friend said that it was reasonable to suppose that £70 might be borrowed by each of them under this Clause, and therefore, the amount borrowed might be £11,000,000. On £11,000,000, the difference between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. is £250,000, which sum would be taken out of the profits of the farming community. That is not an insignificant sum. I ask the Government to be generous in this matter. They are asking the small men to take a certain amount of risk, for it is not certain that they will get bumper crops out of the first year's results of ploughing up. In asking the farming community to do this extra work which is so greatly needed at this time, I hope the Government will be generous to them.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Harlem: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery). The Debate has been a very useful one, and has justified the Amendment being put on the Paper. I should like to say a few words on the question of what the effect of this scheme will be on general credit. Some hon. Members have expressed the view that it will have bad effect, but I do not agree with that view. I have been told by dealers, machinery makers, and so on, in my part of the country that they have so many debts on their books that they do not know what to do. They cannot advance any more money because they are in difficulties themselves. Consequently, if some of their clients who may owe them money are able to obtain credit under this scheme and as a result of obtaining that credit are able to show a profit at the end of the year—my right hon. Friend gave as an example a small man who could show a credit balance of £30 at the end of the year—the result may very well be that some of the people to whom they owe money will ask them to settle up the bills, and that will bring about a general relief. Therefore, I do not think the scheme will have the effect of drying up credit. It may have the effect of giving the farmers more credit. In the past, there have been cases where the giving of credit has dammed up other

sources, but I do not think that will be so in this case.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The Government are trying to give the impression that they are doing something to help the farmers when, in fact, they are not doing anything. This proposal is one of the most amazing proposals I have ever heard. If a small farmer is in such a plight that he cannot get credit it is proposed to give him credit in such conditions as, in the ordinary way, he would get from other sources. The idea is that, by giving him this credit, he will at the end of the year be able not only to pay the 5 per cent. interest, but have a very nice margin left to him. If the position were as simple as that, what would prevent him from getting credit? In my opinion, the proposal simply plays with the question. Are you going to tell a small man who is in difficulties to plough up a certain piece of land, to keep the accounts in connection with it and the sales of products from it completely separate from all his other business, to make it a separate part of his business, and to clear up the accounts on it irrespective of what happens with regard to the remainder of his business? If any small farmer is put in such a position, it will place a further burden on him and make his position more impossible. I have never heard of anything so absurd as this proposal, from the point of view of offering assistance to small men. If the position is to be that the piece of land in question is to be treated in the general accounts and then at the end of the period the farmer has considerable margin of profit, it is obvious that, being in such a position, he would be able to get credit through the ordinary sources, and there would be no necessity for a scheme of this sort. The only justification for having such a scheme would be if it was going to assist those in real difficulties to get out of their difficulties and not produce a situation in which, after they had ploughed up a piece of land, they would be in greater difficulties than before.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Nose, 144.

Division No. 22.]
AYES.
[6.24 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consent)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Riley, B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Shinwell, E.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Silverman, S. S.


Batey, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Benson, G.
Horabin, T. L.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bevan, A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Jackson, W. F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Buchanan, G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stephen, C.


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Charleton, H. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Chater, D.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cluse, W. S.
McGovern, J.
Thorne, W.


Cocks, F. S.
MacLaren, A.
Thurtle, E.


Collindridge, F.
Maclean, N.
Viant, S. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Marshall, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


De la Bère, R.
Messer, F.
Wadgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Dobbie, W.
Milner, Major J.
White, H. Graham


Ede, J. C.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Naylor, T. E.



Foot, D. M.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gallacher, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Wilfrid Roberts and Sir


Gardner, B. W.
Parker, J.
Percy Harris.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Etherton, Ralph
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Fyfe, D. P. M.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Peake, O.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Plugged, Capt. L. F.


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pym, L. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Boulton, W. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brass, Sir W.
Hannah, I. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Robertson, D.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, Sir Alexander


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Salt, E. W.


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Samuel. M. R. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jennings, R.
Scott, Lord William


Colman, N. C. D.
Joel, D. J. B.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
King-Hall, Commander W. S. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Critchley A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Snadden, W. McN.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Levy, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Crowder, J. F. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Storey, S.


Culverwell, C. T.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Davidson, Viscountess
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Magnay, T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Denville, Alfred
Making, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Drewe, C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Touche, G. C.


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Train, Sir J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)







Waterhouse, Captain C.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Webbe, Sir W. Harold
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, C. (Torquay)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Exclusion of certain holdings from Agricultural Holdings Act.)

6.32 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to move, in page 18, line 3, to leave out "commencement of this Act," and to insert:
third day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it will be convenient if the hon. and gallant Member will deal with the four Amendments to this Clause which stand in his name.

Brigadier-General Brown: This Clause excludes from the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, certain grasslands which have been let for cultivation but this exclusion is to apply only from "the commencement of this Act." My Amendment proposes to leave out the words "commencement of this Act" and to insert the date "3rd September, 1939."In many cases an extraordinary anomaly would be created if this exclusion applied only from the commencement of the operation of this Measure, when tenancies may have been made for some time. This is a matter which I hope the Government will look into and put right. The second point involved in these Amendments is dealt with in the fourth Amendment, which proposes to add to the Clause the words:
or
(iii) the land was being so used and was in the occupation of the owner.
This would cover the case of parks let for seasonal grazing prior to the new contracts for tenancy and the case of parks in the proprietor's own occupation. I suggest that the addition of these words will help to carry out what the Government desire to do.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Colville: This Amendment cannot be accepted in this form, but it raises a point of principle with which I find myself in general agreement. The purpose of the Clause is to enable a landowner who has grass parks or other such sub-

jects, which have not been used for agricultural purposes or have been let for seasonal grazing, to let them to a farmer for arable cultivation during the war without thereby incurring the liability to compensate the farmer at the end of the tenancy which would arise in the ordinary way under the Agricultural Holdings Acts. Many such leases have already been entered into since the outbreak of the war, and the purpose of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment and those which follow it on the Order Paper is to extend the scope of the Clause so as to cover these cases retrospectively, back to the beginning of the war. Landowners who have patriotically made grass parks available for the ploughing-up campaign, in some cases without charging any rent, would obviously have a grievance if the tenant, in addition to receiving the return for his produce, were enabled to claim compensation for improvement or for disturbance at the end of the lease.
It is only fair that those who have without question made such land available should not be in any worse position than those who have waited for an Act of Parliament to safeguard them. It is possible, however, that some contracts may have been entered into on terms—perhaps involving a high rent—which have been adjusted on the basis that the Agricultural Holdings Acts will apply. Therefore the question is one which requires examination. I do not think there are many such cases but there may be some. There are certain further points which have been found to arise and which require examination, in particular the position of the owner-occupier which is raised in the last Amendment of this group. There is also the question of whether compensation for improvements as well as disturbance should be ruled out. I am willing to say to my hon. and gallant Friend that I have these points under consideration, that I am in general sympathy with the principle of the Amendment and that I shall try to devise suitable words before the Report stage to meet his point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Regulations as to importation of cattle.)

6.37 p.m.

Major Braithwaite: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, to leave out "Food," and to insert "Agriculture."
There is growing confusion in the minds of farmers regarding the respective duties of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food. Farmers do not object to the Minister of Food being the sole buyer of food or agricultural products, but they resent the Minister of Food interfering in their business of food production. This matter has given rise to great controversy throughout the agricultural community, and in this Clause there appears to be another attempt on the part of the Minister of Food to take charge of animals coming into this country and to regulate the disposal of such animals, the routes to be followed by imported livestock, and the times and prices at which animals may be imported. All these animals are not food. Some of them may be pedigree stock, and the Minister of Agriculture is the Minister who should deal with that side of farming.
I make a protest against the proposal in the Clause, and I ask that the Minister of Agriculture should be primarily responsible, all the way through to the abattoir, for the conduct of the farming community in the production of livestock, just as in the case of any other commodity produced on the farm. When the animal has arrived at the abattoir, then let the Ministry of Food take it over and do what they like about its disposal, but up to that point it should be clearly laid down that the farmers can rely on their own Minister for help and protection. Under this Measure the Minister of Food will be given power to prosecute farmers for acts which they may have done in pursuit of their occupation. Surely if farmers do anything wrong in connection with their own industry, the Minister of Agriculture should deal with them and not some outside Ministry. I ask the Government, therefore, to have the distinction between the two Ministries more clearly defined so that the agricultural community can understand it.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates the difference which the war has made in the situation—a difference which requires the inclusion in this Bill of the words that

his Amendment seeks to delete. The Ministry of Agriculture had the power to control the imports of cattle and sheep in peace-time because they were responsible for administering the subsidy schemes. They required those powers of control in order to prevent smuggling and because of the fact that imported animals either were not eligible for subsidy or were eligible only at reduced rates. That was the point in giving the Ministry of Agriculture those powers in peace-time. But since the outbreak of war and since the Minister of Food became the sole purchaser of livestock in January last, the position is different. Now the subsidies which are payable have been merged in the price scales for the purchase of such stocks, and the prices payable for imported animals take account of the peace-time position, and the Minister of Food, as the Minister responsible for the existing livestock control, requires similar powers to those which were possessed by the Minister of Agriculture in peace-time. It would surely be inappropriate to allow those powers to remain with the Minister of Agriculture when it will not be possible for him to purchase livestock.
For that reason the Bill provides that the Minister of Food shall have the necessary powers which he can exercise in place of the Minister of Agriculture, and following precedent the powers for controlling the importation of animals which it is proposed to give the Minister of Food are dependent on the arrangements made by him for the purchase of livestock. It would be inappropriate, as I say, for the Minister of Agriculture to control imports of livestock when he has no direct responsibility for the purchase of livestock in this country to which the control of imports is a necessary adjunct. I think that is a very potent and cogent reason for declining to accept the Amendment, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend, when he realises the almost Gilbertian situation which would arise if we adopted his scheme, will not press this Amendment.

Major Braithwaite: In view of my right hon. Friend's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 19, line 9, at the end, to insert, "or any class or description thereof."
This Amendment, together with two later Amendments on this Clause, are drafting Amendments designed to make it clear that the regulations which the Minister of Food may make may provide for the marking and control on importation of particular kinds of livestock but not of others. For instance, it may be necessary to confine the regulations to fat stock and leave breeding animals free from control.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 19, line 24, at the end, insert
"or any class or description thereof."

In line 28, after "brought," insert "or any class or description thereof."—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 28.—(Provision for cleansing of channels of watercourses in Scotland.)

Amendments made:

In page 20, line 28, after "notice," insert "or a copy of a notice."

In line 29, leave out "Sub-section (1) of."—[Mr. Colville.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.49 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I am glad of this opportunity of being able to deal with the Scottish aspect in regard to this Clause, as I had intended last night to take part in the Debate. I want first of all to refer to the importance attached to the first three lines of the Clause, which state:
(1) Where on consideration of a report from the Agricultural Executive Committee for any area in Scotland the Secretary of State is satisfied—.
Therefore, with regard to this Clause and any subsequent changes which may be made by this Clause the Secretary of State for Scotland must first of all have a report from the agricultural executive committee. I know some of these committees, and I want to say quite frankly that the farmers of Scotland, particularly those taking part in county council work, and the people of the farming areas in Scotland have very little faith that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be advised in any efficient manner by these committees. Let me put this to the

Secretary of State for Scotland, particularly in regard to Sutherlandshire, already mentioned by—

Mr. Colville: I do not know whether this question can be raised, but I want to be clear, if the hon. Member raises the composition of a particular agricultural executive committee, whether I should be in Order to reply to him on this question that the Clause stand part.

The Deputy-Chairman: Oh, no. As a matter of fact, I was listening to what the hon. Gentleman was saying. He can, of course, object to this Clause because he does not like a committee, but we cannot change this into a Debate on the composition of these committees. The hon. Member may state his reasons for objecting to this Clause, but he cannot debate the composition of the agricultural executive committee. If he did so, then we should be having a Debate miles away from the Clause, and should be discussing something which has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Colville: I only wanted to make it clear that it was only fair that I should be able to reply to the hon. Member.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but I take it that the hon. Member is not going into the constitution of that particular committee, because, if so, he will be out of order.

Mr. Davidson: I am glad that you, Colonel Clifton Brown, have been able to see a little better into the future of my speech than the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can assure you that very seldom do I diverge from the customs and Rulings of the House, and when I do so I shall expect the Chair to deal with that particular question. I was referring, first of all, to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland must be satisfied by a report from any of these agricultural committees, and I think I am entitled to refer to a particular area in Scotland, a big agricultural area, that is affected by the decisions of such a committee and to say, quite frankly, that it does not contain experienced farmers who know the land and have tilled the soil. The Secretary of State for Scotland cannot be expected to receive recommendations from a committee of that type which would enable this Clause to be put into effective operation. The Clause goes on to say that


this report must contain a statement to satisfy the Secretary of State for Scotland
"(a) that any agricultural land in the area of that committee is being injured or in danger of being injured by reason of the failure of the owner or occupier of any other land to cleanse or scour or to join in cleansing or scouring the channel of any watercourse in, or partly in, or adjoining that other land; and
(b) that the estimated cost of carrying out any operations necessary to remedy or prevent such injury would not be unreasonable having regard to the benefits to agriculture that would accrue, and would not, in any case, exceed an amount equal to five pounds for each acre of agricultural land benefited by the operations;
the Secretary of State may serve a notice on the owner of the said other land requiring him to carry out within such period as may be specified in the notice such operations necessary in his opinion to remedy or prevent the injury as may be so specified.
That is to say, the Secretary of State "may," and not "shall," serve a notice on the owner of a piece of land that is important for the production of food during the war which the owner has neglected. I say that the whole Clause is a complete evasion of the responsibility of the Government to deal with these people who ought to be compelled in the same way as soldiers and working-class people are compelled to do their bit as far as the war effort is concerned. The Secretary of State for Scotland cannot be brusque with these people and come down on them firmly but "may" serve a notice if the question is brought to his attention by a committee not formed of agricultural experts, but by landowners. Then if the owner receives this notice, he has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We have then the procedure gradually and slowly unfolding itself to deal with one of the most important phases of the national life.
The composition of the committee of which I have already hinted is anything but helpful to the agricultural interests of Scotland—relatives and that class of people assisting one another. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is convinced that land is being neglected, he may serve a notice. If he does so, the owner can appeal against it, and the Secretary of State has to reconsider the matter all over again. After such reconsideration, if he is convinced that the landowner is not

utilising the land properly and not obeying the Government's decision in accordance with the law, and not carrying out adequate drainage in accordance with the law, or if the owner is in any way neglecting the land, the Secretary of State may then carry out the necessary work himself and place the land in a condition in which it can produce the necessary food. After he has done that he may then send on the expenses to the particular person who has failed in his duty to the nation. The Clause goes on:
Provided that—
(i) if it appears to the Secretary of State that the necessity for the aforesaid operations is due in whole or in part to the neglect of the owner of any land other than that belonging to the person on whom the notice was served or that any benefit has accrued or is expected to accrue in consequence of the carrying out of the operations to the owner of any land other than as aforesaid, the Secretary of State may require the owner of that other land to pay such proportion of the aforesaid expense as in all the circumstances seems just;
The agricultural committees which the Secretary of State has set up must be held in great favour by him, and he must pay great attention to them. He will defend them, no doubt, in this House whenever we raise questions in regard to incompetent men of 76 years of age, who have never had any agricultural experience, being appointed as chairmen. The point will be reached when the Government have done the work which the owners ought to have done, and the Government will naturally present the owners with the bill. But, despite the recommendations of the committee, the two inquiries into the notice, and the two appeals which show quite clearly that the owner is wrong, the Secretary of State for Scotland can charge the owner expenses only if it appears to him after two courts-martial that the neglect has been in whole or in part due to the owner. The whole position is ridiculous. This is a Clause which has been drawn up very astutely in order to allow the landholders of Scotland to escape their responsibilities. It does not assist the farmers in any degree, because they have very little confidence in regard to the recommendations. After presenting the bill to the owner of the land, he is then allowed another appeal against paying the expenses which the Secretary of State says he ought


to pay. The individual is then also given the right to appeal finally to the Scottish Land Court. One of the most ridiculous parts of the Clause is Sub-section (6). After the owner has been found guilty of neglecting his land, has been allowed to appeal, and has had a bill for expenses sent him, has been allowed to appeal to the Scottish Land Court, and has been ordered by the Court to pay, he may receive a grant from the Secretary of State. The Sub-section says:
The Secretary of State may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make grants of such amounts and subject to such conditions as the Treasury may approve to owners of land in respect of expense incurred by or recoverable from them in pursuance of this Section.
We have landowners in Scotland who for years have neglected their land, have retained their land for sporting and other interests, and have never paid any attention to the agricultural demands of the country. To-day, when the Government are saying, "In the name of patriotism, give us a food production policy and use every acre of land you can," we find agricultural committees composed only of landowners having to make recommendations to the Secretary of State—

Mr. Colville: Can the hon. Gentleman name one committee which is composed only of landowners?

Mr. Davidson: I shall be pleased to answer if I am allowed by the Chair. The Sutherlandshire Agricultural War Executive Committee has as its chairman Colonel Gunn, aged 76, who is retired from the Army and has never tilled half-an-acre of land in his life. The secretary is —

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not go into names. He was only asked to name one committee.

Mr. Davidson: I say that not one member of the Sutherlandshire committee is a farmer.

Mr. Colville: I cannot allow that to pass. The hon. Member is making a statement which is wholly inaccurate. This committee is largely composed of practising farmers.

Mr. Davidson: I dispute that, but I will not go into it now. I have certain questions addressed to the Secretary of State, and he knows that I never shirk an issue on which I have information.
I will place it with the best advantage to the country before the House at the first opportunity. The point remains, in regard to this Clause, that the procedure is inadequate and will not make for efficiency in Scottish agriculture. If any of the working-class lads of Maryhill who have been called up to defend the country neglected their duties or took steps to see that others did so, they would be dealt with by the law as acting against the interests of the nation. This Clause, however, does nothing to a landowner in Scotland who neglects his land. It gives him the maximum number of avenues of escape. It leaves it wholly in the hands of the Secretary of State to decide after the agricultural committee have made a recommendation. It takes it out of the hands of the Secretary of State by giving the owner an appeal to a Scottish Land Court, but it then comes back to the Scottish Secretary who may make a grant to this unpatriotic landowner to help him pay the expenses which the Scottish Secretary thinks he ought to pay for neglecting his duty. It is a ridiculous Clause, which has been drafted in order to give landowners in Scotland the maximum means of escaping from "their duty to agriculture. It will not assist the farmers, but will react against the farming community by preventing them taking advantage of the land. It will stultify their efforts and affect the food production policy very materially. The Clause is a disgrace to the Government and ought not to be accepted without severe investigation.

Mr. Leslie: Is it not the case that the Sutherland County Council unanimously protested four times against the composition of the agricultural committee?

Mr. Colville: I do not know whether I can answer in detail about the Sutherland County Council, but they were allowed to nominate members, and did not do so. The committee is largely composed of practising farmers.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the committee was appointed before the county council was consulted at all; that the council sent four resolutions of protest about the appointment to the committee; and that when three members of the council, all experts, were invited to attend the committee, they stated that they would first wait for the reply from the Scottish Secretary to their protest?

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot turn "this into a debate on the actions of the Sutherlandshire Agricultural Committee.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I hope to find another opportunity of answering the hon. Member, because I would not like the Press to form a wrong impression of what has taken place in Sutherlandshire, where the committee are working actively for the purpose for which they were appointed. The object of this Clause—and the hon. Member's violent wrangling may be tempered when he realises it—is to make good an omission in the Act of 1930 passed by the Labour Government for dealing with the same trouble. That Act enables an owner whose land is endangered by the failure of another owner to keep his watercourses in proper order to apply to the sheriff for a warrant ordering the carrying out of the work, and the sheriff may direct that the cost should be borne by the parties in such proportion as he thinks fit. That procedure was cumbersome and expensive and has been taken little advantage of. It has been found in experience not to be effective. Therefore, the hon. Member's violent attack on the Clause in this Bill is a little out of place, because the Clause is designed to deal with the same problem. He spoke so violently about it that I am wondering what has converted him during the last 10 years.

Mr. Davidson: There has not been an Agriculture Bill, and I have not been in the House 10 years.

Mr. Colville: I do not know why the hon. Member has become so violent a convert after all this time. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Secretary of State to enforce the clearing of watercourses so as to ensure that land is not damaged. It is framed so that the cost may be recovered and it provides rights of appeal. I have in mind that the important thing is to get the work done. In many cases it cannot be done unless some provision of this sorties made. Therefore, we have included this provision. Having in mind the fact that the Bill is a war Measure for the purpose of speedily getting into cultivation land which is at present unsuitable for cultivation, I suggest that the method that we are proposing in the Clause is the most suitable.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point that I

raised in regard to initiative being taken first of all by the war agricultural committees, and will he say what kind of initiative he expects from a committee when the agent of a landowner is upon it?

Mr. Colville: I think, Colonel Clifton Brown, that we are getting near to a delicate subject again. The composition of the committees in Scotland is very largely of practical farmers. The hon. Member shows a complete lack of knowledge of the situation in Scotland when he suggests that the committees are composed mainly of landowners, and I would not like this opportunity to pass without saying that the suggestion made that agricultural executive committees in Scotland are not fulfilling their difficult duties as well as they can is entirely wrong. They are doing their best and tackling their job very seriously and effectively indeed.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of powers of Catchments Boards as respects maintenance of watercourses.)

As respects any agricultural land within a catchments area but not within an internal drainage district, the powers conferred on the council of the county or county borough within which the land is situated by Section thirty-five and Sub-section (2) of Section fifty of the Land Drainage Act, 1930 (which enable the council to require a person in default to put a watercourse in proper order) shall, during the war period, be exercisable by the Catchment Board for that area as well as by that council.—[Mr. Ramsbotham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under Section 35 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, read in conjunction with Subsection (2) of Section 50 of the Act, a drainage board, not being a catchment board and/or a county council, may serve notice on an occupier requiring him to put his watercourse in order if, by reason of the condition of that watercourse:
agricultural land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person is being injured by water or is in danger of being so injured.
Catchment boards have, under Clause 14 of the Bill, to prepare schemes for the


drainage of land that is under the authority of the county council. I hope it will be clear to the Committee that it is desirable that the boards should have the complementary power in appropriate cases to serve a notice under Section 35.

7.14 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The two catchment boards which have the power referred to by the Minister have been enabled, by Act of Parliament, to remove the local land drainage boards, which existed mainly for the purpose of paying salaries to officials rather than for carrying out any drainage scheme. It is now possible for the main river to appear in a comprehensive scheme with the neighbouring watercourses and streams. The Clause that we are discussing, and that will probably be inserted in the Bill, will be more productive of rapid drainage work than anything else in the Bill. It enables the expert engineers of the catchment authorities to carry through drainage, not in a haphazard manner but in a proper manner. No doubt the hon. Gentleman who addressed us just now, with all his hatred of landlords, may remember that it is the obligation of the person who owns the land to see that the ditches and things are clear.
It is necessary to point out that the agricultural committee of the county council is a different body from the war agricultural committee; it is essential that the agricultural committee, as distinct from the war executive committee, should be able to work in conjunction with the catchments board. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept the proposed new Clause, recognizing that it endeavors to do something in the spring of this year for areas which ought never to have been allowed to get into their present derelict condition.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924.)

Section five of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, shall have effect as if after paragraph (b) there were inserted the following paragraph—
(bb) fix a minimum rate of wages which, in the opinion of the Agricultural Wages

Board, is not consistent with the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section two of this Act; or.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We have heard hon. Members opposite asking the Government this afternoon to be generous to farmers, and that is by no means the first time that we have listened to that plea. The new Clause which I propose will give hon. Gentlemen the opportunity of expressing their generous instincts on behalf of the agricultural laborer. First of all, I should explain how the proposal which I am making would apply, assuming that the Minister felt disposed to accept it. Section 1 of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, established an agricultural wages committee for each county and an Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales. The duties of the committees are denned in Clause 2 and the duties and powers of the Agricultural Wages Board under Clause 5. If the proposed new Clause is accepted, thereafter, if an agricultural wages committee does not fix a minimum rate of wages which, in the opinion of the Agricultural Wages Board, is consistent with the provisions of Subsection (4) of Section 2 of the Act of 1924, the Agricultural Wages Board will have the power to step in and, after giving the prescribed notice,
to fix, cancel or vary the rate of wages
operating in the district concerned, as the case may require.
Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act to which I have referred calls upon an agricultural wages committee to secure as far as practicable, in fixing minimum rates for able-bodied men,
such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation.
Briefly stated, therefore, the position would be as follows: A county wages committee may have fixed a wage which, in the opinion of the national or central Wages Board, was not consistent with Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act of 1924. What the Committee is called upon to do this afternoon is to give to the


Agricultural Wages Board real power, where a county wages committee appears to have faltered in its interpretation of Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act. I think that is a very modest plea, and it will prove the sincerity of hon. Members opposite, whose expressions of sympathy for years have exceeded the expressions of sympathy from hon. Members on these benches. They have always said that the agricultural laborer's wage is not what it ought to be and they would like to give him more, but the money is not there. Prices are too low. The economic situation of the industry will not permit it. The position has always been that in storm and sunshine the laborer has always been the last consideration. That position is really not good enough.
The agricultural laborer, after all, has no say in the management of the farm. He has no say as to what shall and what shall not be produced. He has no say as to whom the produce shall be sold and at what price. He is a sort of good lad who just does as he is told by the farmer, and he does what he is called upon to do as skillfully as any other artisan in the country. But because they have been so badly organized in their trade unions they have been taken undue advantage of by some farmers, since they have been able to exercise little or no pressure in an industrial sense. I think it has come to be regarded by some farmers—not all; there are good farmers, as there are good industrialists, mine owners and others, but there is a section of farmers who have come to regard the agricultural laborer, because of his bad organization, his isolation, and the fact that he had no unified voice, as something of a clodhopper, something sub-normal, and his wages and general conditions have been reduced to that status. The agricultural laborer who can plough a straight furrow, build a thatch, lay a hedge, and care for livestock is no longer a clodhopper. He is a very skilled man, and he is entitled to far better wages and far better treatment than he has been having for generations. I think it is time that the Committee, which has been by no means hesitant in dealing with problems affecting the landlord and the farmer, ought to recognize that unless they are willing to confer upon the laborer a greater measure of home comfort and provide him with far better wages he is

going to lose the skilled laborer altogether. Since 1918 there has been a spread of the population. As the result of cycles, and motor cycles, and motor cars, hundreds of thousands of urban dwellers have gone out into the country.
We therefore have to-day the urban and the rural worker almost living side by side, but with this major difference. While the urban worker resident on the country side lives in a modern house with modern conveniences, and has a few shillings left after dealing with his home requirements for recreation and the rest, the wretched agricultural laborer in 1940, very much as in 1840, still lives in a wretched old cottage with none of the modern conveniences and none of those pleasures and joys of modern civilization that the urban dweller resident on the countryside is now able to enjoy. Moreover, he has so few shillings left for recreation when he has turned over such money as he receives to his wife. Whether in time of peace or of war, the time has definitely arrived when the Committee ought at long last to recognize its duty to that very sadly neglected section of the community. We often hear it said that agriculture is going to the dogs and that it is down and out. Unless you have contented laborers, that perhaps is the biggest weakness within the whole agricultural industry. I ask hon. Members to take note of what farmers are saying in all parts of the country. There is a definite shortage of skilled labour. They are informed that if they apply to the Agricultural Executive Committee or to the Employment Exchange there are 1,500,000 out of work and they ought to be able to provide themselves with all the labour they need. The simple fact is that the farmers will not take men from the Employment Exchange. They know that their skill is in comparison inferior, and that any wage paid to the ordinary urban worker would be dear compared with what they pay to the skilled worker. Therefore cheap labour can be dear labour if it is not skilled and if it is recruited in the wrong direction.
The clause, simply calling for the establishment of a Central Wages Board, does not necessarily mean that there is going to be an instantaneous increase of 10s. for every agricultural laborer in the country. It does not mean that every farmer is going to be turned into the


bankruptcy court. It simply means that the board, which is made up of men with assumed intelligence, will review from time to time, according to their interpretations of Section 2 (4) of the 1924 Act and either confirm the decision of the county wages committee or give notice of their intention perhaps to revise the wage for the county. The farmer's position, after all, may be bad here and there, but I have here a report from the "Eastern Daily Express" of a speech by the Minister a few days ago which is an indication of what Parliament and other factors have done for the farmer during the past few months or years. Speaking somewhere in Norfolk, he emphasized that we had started the war with a low level of prices for agricultural products, and some of the figures might seem to the ordinary consuming public to have gone up quite a lot. They had fought for years the battle for barley, and actually since this time last year the price had risen from 7s. 10d. a cwt. to 18s. 1d., oats had gone up from 6s. 6d. to 14s. 10d., feeding oats from 6s. 5d. to us., fat cattle from 48s. 5d. to 64s. 6d., and second grade in like proportion.
That is sufficient to prove that the Government since 1931 have put millions of pounds into the pockets of farmers, which perhaps in some cases only just enable them to carry on, but, since every piece of legislation has been passed to make it possible for the poorest farmer just to carry on, those farmers who have got good land and who farm exceedingly well, who have taken advantage of mechanism that is now available to them, are doing extremely well. Yet in war-time we still find that there are counties where wages of agricultural laborers are as low as 32s., 34s., and 35s. and 36s., while about three counties in the whole country pay wages of £2 a week.
The farmer and his political representatives have become the best beggars in the country. Governments, if they have not done all for the fanners that some hon. Members think they might have done, at least have done a good deal for a lot of farmers, and it is my confirmed opinion that, ignoring the small number of farms where no mechanization has taken place, there is quite a large number of farmers who are doing reasonably well, and who could quite easily afford to give their laborers a much better wage, and provide them with better

houses and more amenities than they at present enjoy. I have heard that the Department are considering a Bill to deal with agricultural labourers' wages. Unless I can be shown that this very simple and direct Clause, which simply re-establishes a Central Wages Board with some power, is not the most efficient means of giving effect to what we desire, then we shall be obliged, in case of necessity, to go to a Division. But I am hopeful that hon. Gentlemen who have begged so long and so often for the farmers will be as generous to the agricultural labourer this time as the House has been to the fanner many times since 1931. I beg to move this new Clause in the hope that the House will accept it, whatever the two Ministers in charge of the Bill may think.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: In the middle of last year when we were discussing an agriculture Bill we had a full dress Debate about the agricultural workers, and we heard from hon. Members opposite many speeches sympathising with the agricultural worker and hoping that the time would soon come when he would be paid a reasonable wage. This Clause is somewhat similar to the provision in the Bill of 1924 when it was introduced, and hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee which considered that Bill will recall that we had a terrific fight on this very principle of a Central Wages Board with overriding powers. We were told then that what was necessary in agriculture was good will on both sides, and that if wages could be fixed by voluntary agreement that was the best thing of all. The next argument used was that it was far better to fix wages in the locality through the wages committees than to fix them in London. I was not at all impressed by the arguments that were then used, 16 years ago, and it would have been a good thing for the farm workers if a combination of Tories and Liberals had not deleted the Central Wages Board provision from that Bill.
There has been some progress made in agricultural wages since 1924. After Parliament abolished the Wheat Act and the Wages Board set up during the last war wages in agriculture fell to a very low level, and the local voluntary conciliation committees were not able to arrest the decline; and when Mr. Noel-Buxton, as he then was, introduced the


very Act which this Clause seeks to amend there were counties where wages were lower than £1 per week. Historically the agricultural worker has been the Cinderella of all industrial workers. Since the war started last September there has been considerable improvement in wages. A good many wages committees have given increases, and I was very pleased to read in the "Land Worker" a paper read very widely by agricultural workers, and by many Members in this House, that since hostilities began last September there has been something like £2,250,000 given to agricultural workers in increased wages. But wide discrepancies exist as between district and district. According to an answer given by the Minister a couple of weeks ago, there are about three districts in the Kingdom paying more than £2 a week. I believe that Lancashire (with the exception of South Lancashire) has the highest minimum wage in the country. That is 43s. a week, but it is for a 58-hour week, and that is considerably less than 1s. per hour. There are two or three more counties paying £2 a week—I believe Kesteven and Middlesex; but there are districts where wages are as low as 32s., and there are three or four agricultural wages committees which have not given a penny increase.
It is hardly fair that the farmers in some counties should be paying as much as 9s. or 10s. a week more than their competitors in some other district. This is an argument that has been put to us as negotiators for many years past. It is an argument that has been used with effect by colliery managers in fixing new prices. What they say is, "We have all got to sell coal in the same market. If you insist that this price-list should be so much more per ton than my competitor demands, then he has a distinct advantage in the market when seeking orders." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molten (Mr. Lambert) said in 1924 that when there are two jobs for a man, the man can command his own wage. If the agricultural workers in this country realized their strength as some of the other industrial workers do, they could force their point of view in negotiations, and the Government and the farmers would be bound to listen. Agricultural workers are very difficult to organize, because there are so few of

them working on a single farm. While there are certain counties with excellent organisations, which have made their influence felt on the wages committees, other counties have very little organization. As one who has addressed meetings on agriculture in a good many counties during the last 14 or 15 years, I have been appalled at the difficulty of getting the ordinary agricultural workers in some districts into a trade union. In these days, we have farmers crying out for labour. Everybody knows that the farm worker is a skilled worker. He has a right to a decent wage, and up to now he has not got it. The House of Commons has a responsibility to see that he is paid on something like a fair basis.
I cannot anticipate what the Government's reply to this Debate will be, but we were told by the Lord Privy Seal a few days ago that the Government had been meeting the different interests in the industry, with a view to securing some agreement on new legislation for farm workers. It may be that we shall be told that agreement has been reached, and that it is the intention of the Government, in the near future, to bring in legislation. But I still think that the principle contained in this Clause is long overdue. It would be a good thing to accept the Clause, and at least give the Central Wages Board an overriding supervision, so that they may see that the men are treated fairly. If the Government have reached agreement—and, from information I have received, I think they have—and they intend to bring in legislation, I hope that, even if they do not accept this Clause, they will be generous to the farm workers. I look back to one period which, so far as the farm workers are concerned, is not altogether to our credit as a nation. I remember 1914 very vividly. When war broke out, one of the best organized counties in this country, Norfolk, had an agricultural wage of 15s. a week. It actually required a strike of Norfolk farm workers to secure an increase. As a result of what I believe was about the first three-party meeting which took place in Norfolk between landowners, farmers and farm workers, a 3s. increase was secured, bringing the wage up to 18s. a week.
We may get the argument that the farmer is no worse than a good many other employers. We may get the argument that the industry cannot afford to


pay better wages. Quite frankly, I believe that the farmer has a perfect right to prices which will enable him to lead a decent life and to pay a good wage. One hon. Member who has done a certain amount of writing for the "Farmers' Weekly" wrote about "bearing poverty joyfully." I believe that there is no reason for either the farmer or the farm worker to continue joyfully living in poverty. I hope that, if they do not accept this Clause, the Government will bringing new legislation, which will be generous to the farm worker, which will recognize that the farmer is an important factor, in peace and in war, and which will enable him to pay a decent wage.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) put his arguments, as he always does, very clearly, fairly and moderately. It is always a delight to me to accept the proposals of the Opposition, and I feel a tinge of pain when I am unable to do it. I am going to deal rather meticulously with this Clause, to show why I do not believe that it will achieve the result which the hon. Member intends, and to suggest what I believe will prove a better course. The object of the Clause is, I believe, to provide that the Agricultural Wages Board, set up under Section 1 of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, shall have power to override the decision of the county agricultural committees, set up under the same Section. Section 1 of the Act set up the committees for the counties, and Section 2 charged them with the duty of fixing minimum rates of wages for workers in agriculture. Sub-section (4) of that Section provides that:
In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as, in the opinion of the committee, are adequate.…
Section 3 provides that, when a committee has fixed the minimum wage, it shall submit it to the Agricultural Wages Board. The board is then required to
make such order as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the decision of the committee.
It is important to note that the board has no choice in the matter. The only ground on which the board can interfere is that the agricultural wages committee has not fixed a rate, or has failed to fixed a rate

to replace one which has been cancelled or has ceased to operate, or where, by a resolution of the representative members of the committee, the board has been asked to fix, cancel, or vary a rate. The difficulty about this Clause is that it provides that if the committee fix a rate of wages which the board thinks is not consistent with the provisions of the Act, the board can fix the rate itself. I see very great complications arising out of such a. provision. Let us imagine how, in such circumstances, a rate could be enforced. A committee has fixed, and submitted to, the board, a minimum rate which, in the opinion of the committee, is adequate, having regard to the conditions laid down in Sub-section (4) of Section 2. On the other hand, the board have now to take action, because, in their opinion, the rate is not adequate. Whose opinion is to prevail? A very difficult state of affairs might result from such a clash.
I think that what is intended by the Clause is that the present position in regard to minimum wages should be suspended. If my interpretation is right, the point is in a sense met. If the hon. Member desires to carry out a Measure of this kind, he will find something in the Bill much more elaborate than what is provided in this Clause. In view of the difficulties which I see about accepting this Clause, I would remind the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith)—though, of course, he requires no reminding, because he is well aware of this—that negotiations have been carried on between the parties affected; and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture intends to legislate on this matter in the near future. I, obviously, cannot disclose in advance the contents of this legislation, but I think he will agree that, in view of the difficulties, technical difficulties to a large degree no doubt, in connection with this new Clause, it would probably meet his case that it should be dealt with by separate legislation devoted to that subject. For these reasons I think it is better on the whole not to accept the new Clause, but to wait until the legislation of which I spoke is forthcoming.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May we have this made very clear? My colleagues and I have gone into this matter with meticulous care and attention and we think that this is the most direct, simple and effective


way of providing a national wages board with real power. If I do not misinterpret the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he does not disagree with that view, but what he does disagree with is that, when the county wages committees come to interpret Sub-section (4) of Section 2 to fix adequate wages
to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard off comfort,
they may differ from the interpretation of the same Sub-section by a national wages board. Our justification for believing that there is ample reason why there should be a national wages board is that at the moment there are counties where agricultural laborers are receiving 32s. a week, 36s. a week, 38s., 40s. and 43s. Does any hon. Member sitting in any part of this Committee believe that the agricultural economics in the counties vary to that extent? I cannot be made to think so. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, with two sets of people sitting down to interpret one set of words, there must be two views, but not necessarily violent disagreement. A national wages board would hold a watching brief for the right hon. Gentleman, and we think it would do good.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not wish to 4abour the point unduly. I notice that the hon. Gentleman, as always, has meticulously considered this matter, and so have my advisers, and what I am giving him is the advice that they have given to me of the effect of the new Clause, and I still think that the best way to deal with this matter is to await legislation.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think that before we part from this matter the Minister ought to give a little more indication of what such legislation is going to be. It might very well be legislation that would be completely satisfactory to us, but on the other hand it might be partly satisfactory or it might be unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman confessed at the beginning of his speech that heal ways felt pained in dealing with the Amendments of my hon. Friend and not being able to accept them. It would surely be a deplorable thing if the new Clause were withdrawn on the statement made to-night. I understand—it is what I am

sure the right hon. Gentleman meant to convey—that if we would only wait long enough, but it would not be too long, we would find that the proposed legislation would give us the substance of what we require, if not the precise machinery that we propose for effecting it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something more on these lines. If the objection of the right hon. Gentleman is only to the machinery, I should have thought that the proper thing to do would be to accept the Clause to-night, and, on the Report stage of the Bill, put in some more elaborate provisions which he says are necessary. I did not gather from the wording of the Clause how two rates of wages could be in existence at the same time for the same area. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Section 5 of the Act are all alternatives, and if we therefore amend it after paragraph (b), the Clause would read:
If an agricultural wages committee
(bb) fix a minimum rate of wages which, in the opinion of the Agricultural Wages Board, is not consistent with the provisions of Sub-section (4) Section 2 of this Act;
the Agricultural Wages Board may, if after giving the prescribed notices, by order fix, cancel, or vary the rate as the case requires, and for that purpose shall have and may exercise all the powers of the committee.
As I read it I cannot make that mean anything other than that, if, in the opinion of the board, the rate fixed by the county committee is not consistent with Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the principal Act the board can then themselves fix, cancel or vary the rate. In this case presumably they would vary the rate which had been recommended by the wages committee, and from the date that they so varied it, as I understand it, their rate and not the committee's rate would be the one which would have effect within the area. I do not know whether there is some point in the original Act that I have overlooked, but, in reading Section 5 with great care, it appeared to me that the machinery in the proposed new Clause was completely effective for securing the decision for which my hon. Friend pleaded. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that it is hoped in the near future to get agreement on this matter, but did not say where the Clause, as I have read it, fails to achieve the purpose that we desire. I regret that we have not heard in this Debate the voices of any of those hon.
Members who had been pleading earlier in the evening for getting as little as £1 8s. for the farmer.

Mr. W. Roberts: We have not had a chance yet.

Mr. Ede: If there is even the slightest desire on the part of other hon. Members to participate in the Debate—I am very glad to know that they have that desire—I will not prevent them for more than another few seconds from giving evidence of their desire to see that appropriate machinery is set up for over-riding the decisions of the agricultural wages committees. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can explain exactly the way that Section 5 of the principal Act, as amended in the way that we propose, would fail to bring in a rate of wages which would be effective in the area concerned.

Mr. Ramsbotham: rose—

7.59 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: The Debate really is becoming the monopoly of the two Front benches. We have had five or six speeches in succession from the two Front benches, from the Minister and from two hon. Members sitting there, and Members in all parts of the Committee, including the back benches behind hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, have been getting up and trying to get in. To add insult to injury the hon. Member who has been occupying so much time of the Committee during the last hour has said that other Members were not interested in the Bill and that that was the reason why they had not been speaking. I hope the Deputy-Chairman will be able to observe others who wish to speak.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Minister, I understand, got up to explain a position which was not clear. Members cannot debate a thing properly if provisions are not explained.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I will delay the Committee for only one minute. The hon. Member who has just sat down asked me about the effect of the Section. In my own opinion, and in that of my advisers, there would be a conflict of opinion between the committee and the board. I am asked now to give some indication of the kind of legislation to be brought forward but I think it would be

unwise to do that because negotiations are in progress and hon. Members well know how undesirable it would be to forecast legislation until negotiations are completed. For that reason I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I believe that this is a most serious problem, which will affect not only the agricultural workers but also the future food supply of this country. I do not want to go back into the old question raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), but I was pleased to hear that there has been considerable progress under the Act. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the case the fact remains that the position has improved. Although I was not a Member of the House at the time I know the view was held by some of us that to control wages centrally would bring the higher scale to the level of the lower scale and would not scale up the lower wages to the higher. It might well have been argued then, but the position is rather different now. The difference between counties who pay higher rates and those who pay lower rates is less great than it was then. Local differences in agricultural practices are much less than they were then and, as already pointed out, for so many commodities the farmer is getting the same price whether he lives in Cornwall or on the Scottish Border. If he gets the same price there is little reason why he should not pay the same wage to his workers. I wish I could say it with the eloquence of the hon. Member who moved this new Clause, but the agricultural worker does deserve better treatment for his skilled work than he has received in the past.
Having read some of the history of agriculture in the last war I have been much interested by the tremendous difference that faced the Food Production Department when the numbers of agricultural workers were reduced by calling up, and men left the countryside to work in better paid munitions works. I hope that when the Government introduce the legislation they have told us about to-night it will provide an effective solution of the problem, and that they will deal courageously within. I am sure the principle which the agricultural community is, in general, prepared to accept—that wages should be related to prices and that the price of agricultural commodities should make a fair and decent


wage—is one that gives great possibility of improvement of the position of agricultural workers if there is reasonableness on all sides, and willingness to meet the position. It is vital that workers should have a better standard of living and should be retained on the land if our food supply is to be maintained.

8.6 p.m.

Sir Murdock MacDonald: We have heard a great deal about the negotiations which are proceeding on this particular matter and I would like to know whether they are also in hand in Scotland for the improvement of the machinery in connection with agricultural wages. Everybody is deeply concerned that agricultural wages should be put on a proper and adequate level, because it is quite evident that the machinery so far in operation is not quite successful.

Mr. Colville: In reply to the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald), I can say that for some weeks past my officials have been discussing with both sides of the farming industry in Scotland the question of whether the existing machinery for fixing wages can be improved. I hope shortly to be able to make a report on the proposals which require legislation. I am anxious to get agreement on both sides.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I do not think my hon. Friends on this side of the House desire to misjudge the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in this matter, but I am bound to say that they have an unfortunate habit of always seeing in the easiest of principles what the right hon. Gentleman called "very grave complications." He went so far as to confess that there had been a meticulous search in order to find these grave complications. I share the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Dee) that the proposition now before the Committee is really a simple one. It is difficult to think that the complications are so great that the right hon. Gentleman could have arrived at the conclusion he did arrive at, unless it was a conclusion he really wanted to arrive at. Surely the position which my hon. Friends desire by the terms of the new Clause is to give to the National Wages Board over-riding authority over the county committees which would enable

the board to say, as to any rate fixed by a county committee, "That is not within the provisions of the principal Act and should be revised in a way that would be favourable to the farm worker."
I do not think that my hon. Friend is unfair in pressing the right hon. Gentleman to say when his alternative proposals are likely to be before the House, or to state the nature of these alternative proposals. Here is a definite submission. I have no desire to introduce unpleasantness into this discussion but the party opposite have a very bad history and an unsavory record in connection with this matter, and we are entitled to see something definite out of the bag before we withdraw the new Clause. We are entitled to see whether the alternative proposals will give the national wages board the same overriding authority as the new Clause proposes. I am not going to assume, I refuse to assume without further evidence, that the proposal of the Government will meet the situation in the way we desire and in the same substantial fashion as the new Clause. I warn the Government that this is a matter which lies very near the hearts of hon. Members on this side and that they will pursue it with energy and examine the Government's proposal with the same meticulous care as the right hon. Gentleman has examined our proposal. The men on whose behalf we plead this evening have been the victims at the hands of this House of more ill-treatment, and more treachery, sometimes bordering on brutality, than any other section of workers in any industry.
I do not want to be too sentimental, but it is a matter of pride to us that only a few years ago we celebrated the centenary of six great men indeed, agricultural laborers who over 100 years ago laid the foundation of our great trade union movement. When I speak of treachery, I am reminded of the references which have been made to the repeal of the Corn Production Act. I have more than one very good reason for remembering the consequences of that repeal. I remember in the Spring of that year taking part in a by-election at Taunton when Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, then the Minister of Agriculture, flying from one constituency to another in the hope of getting back to this House again, was the Conservative candidate. He placarded the division with huge posters, "Vote for


the man who brought prosperity to the agricultural community and happiness to the agricultural labourer." On the basis of that appeal he came to this House with a large majority. Within three months from the Front Bench he moved the repeal of the Corn Production Act, and agricultural wages came down and the industry became bankrupt and poverty-stricken. I was then in a little Norfolk town, King's Lynn, and one of the consequences of that repeal was that there was a strike of Norfolk labourers, who marched miles through the winding lanes of the county to get a wage of 24s. a week, because there was no statutory authority after the disappearance of the Agricultural Wages Board to secure a figure of that amount.
The party opposite in repealing the very provision in the principal Act which we want to reinsert, only justify me in saying that before we see the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman we are not prepared to assume that they are going to be satisfactory. This is a matter of special interest to me for personal reasons. One generation of my family was born in the hungry 'forties, and my children's grandparents were agricultural labourers earning 9s. a week in the county of Norfolk. The marks of that poverty are on one of my own children to-day. In 1910 I was working as a young railway clerk in the county of Lincoln, in the division represented by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) and in the heyday of pre-war prosperity I remember a farmer and a merchant tossing as to whether 250 tons of potatoes should be at a rate of £6 per ton or £6 10s. per ton. The farmer won at £6 10s. At the same time labourers were asked to work for 16s. a week and those who dared to join the Agricultural Workers' Union—I saw it in scores of cases—had their furniture turned out from their humble cottages on to the highways in the drenching rain, in the hope that by such victimisation their proud and valiant spirit would be crushed. It was out of such resolute courage that the steady improvements in the condition of agricultural laborers referred to by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) have been effected. It may be assumed that we on this side will stick to the proposal to secure for agricultural labourers the same central over-riding authority in the determination of their wage conditions which exists in most other

industries, and certainly in one with which I am associated. I hope that in the absence of some more definite knowledge as to time and provisions my hon. Friends will press the Motion to a Division.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I was one of those who supported the proposal for a £2 per week minimum wage for agricultural labourers a month or so ago. I felt that it was right then, and I think it is still more right now. I rather support the Clause, and I gather that the Government have rather accepted it; that it is only a matter of machinery. The Government's reply that they will undertake to produce an alternative scheme is as good a reply as we can expect. The only point I want to mention is that if there is established a central wages board with power to review decisions of local wage committees then, quite clearly, that principle must be established in Scotland, and it so happens that we have already in existence the report of a committee which examined this matter presided over by Lord Caithness. One of the principal recommendations of that committee was that there should be such a central wages, board in Scotland, with power to review the decisions of local committees. If the Secretary of State's negotiations are leading to the adopting of a scheme with that provision in it I shall be prepared to accept it. That committee was representative of farmers, landowners and farm workers, and it was a unanimous recommendation. If my right hon. Friend's; activities are directed towards that objective he will receive the support of this. House and also of Scottish agriculturists.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: This is the first time I have intervened in a Deabte on agriculture, and I do so because I believe that the conditions of work and pay of the agricultural workers will be the determining factors in this scheme for the revival of agriculture. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) appears to be satisfied with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that something is to be done in the future for the agricultural workers. With the agricultural worker, it has always been a case of jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day. If the right hon. Gentleman had given some indication of the


sort of machinery that will be set up and when it will work for the benefit of the agricultural labourers, we might have been prepared to consider withdrawing the new Clause. But the point is that, as the war goes on, we may be told that there is not time to bring in legislation of that kind, and then agricultural labourers will be left in the soup. Since I have been a Member of the House, I have listened to many speeches pleading for the farmers and for the landowners, and the farmers and landowners have been given grants and subsidies to relieve them. When the First Commissioner of Works refused our request and disapproved of the new Clause, he said that it always gave him great pleasure to accede to requests from this side of the House, and that he was extremely pained to have to refuse this one. All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman must be suffering from perpetual discomfort, because I have never known him to give anything to this side of the House.
In the Second Reading Debate, the right hon. Gentleman said this Bill would fill a gap. I have not heard him define either the size or the location of the gap, but I suggest that if the well-being of the agricultural workers is left out of consideration, a very big gap will be left. The agricultural workers have always been the worst paid of all workers, and this has often been due to the fact that if their wages were kept low, other wages could be kept low as well. I speak with a certain amount of personal experience in this matter, because just after the outbreak of war in 1914, I was privileged, in the Derbyshire County Council, to move a motion for an increase of 5s. a week in the wages of roadmen. On that occasion, the farmers were against the motion the argument being that if the roadmen's wages were increased by 5s. a week, all the agricultural labourers in the district would want to become roadmen. Agriculture has been the Cinderella of industries, and the farm workers have always been the worst paid of all workers. This Bill will necessitate the provision of a vast amount of labour if its objects are to be carried out effectively. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is in the country districts sufficient labour to carry out this work. I feel that there will not be adequate

labour available unless the agricultural workers are given a square deal. After the last war, there was a drift from the country to the town, and possibly we shall, after the cessation of hostilities, see an even greater drift unless agriculture is made a promising industry for the workers in it.
I was amazed to hear the First Commissioner of Works, when refusing to accept the new Clause, simply give reasons why it could not be accepted. If the Government had any sympathy for the agricultural workers, they would have endeavored to find reasons why they should accept the new Clause. During the last few days I have heard the right hon. Gentleman pleading, cajoling and promising in matters that would be of benefit to the landowners and farmers, but in refusing to accept this Clause, he did not even offer a word of sympathy for the agricultural workers. If he has sympathy for the agricultural workers, he ought to express the view that the plight of the agricultural workers is a disgrace to a civilised community, and state his desire and intention to see that in the revival of agriculture the workers shall be considered. The success of any such scheme will be absolutely dependent upon the position of the agricultural workers and the possibility of retaining them on the land. If the Government are not prepared to give some further indication as to what they promise for the future, how their promise is to be carried into effect and when legislation will be brought forward, I hope my hon. Friends will press the new Clause to a Division, and so demonstrate that we at any rate are desirous of securing better conditions for the agricultural labourers, and that the Government are not concerned about the conditions of the workers in the countryside.
Last Tuesday, when a Motion was moved from this side of the House, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury asked us whether we realised there was a war on. When one sees the attitude of the Government and how they attempt to thwart and prevent an improvement in the conditions of the people of this country, one wonders whether they are certain there is a war on, and whether they are determined to carry it through as effectively and quickly as possible. I believe that we are fighting for the


preservation of all that democracy stands for; and the first essential of democracy is that it shall give to the people an opportunity of leading a full and rich life and having an adequacy of money with which to buy the necessities of life. The agricultural workers never have had an adequate wage for the work they do. It is because the agricultural labourers are worthy of much more than they get, and because, if there is to be a revival of agriculture, we have to get the sympathetic co-operation of the agricultural labourers, that I hope this new Clause will be pressed to a Division.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one simple question? In the last 20 years we have had two Socialist administrations. On each occasion when there was a Socialist Administration projects were brought forward to help the agricultural labourer. Can he inform the Committee of a single instance in which a Socialist Administration has done anything positive or constructive for the agricultural labourers of this country?

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: I think we should have some further elucidation, either from the Secretary of State for Scotland or from the First Commissioner of Works on this subject. I propose to touch on one aspect only of the matter, one which the Secretary of State for Scotland himself raised, namely, that he or his Department has been negotiating with both sides in the hope of being able to find a basis of agreement before the introduction of the projected legislation. It happens, fortunately or unfortunately for me, that I have been taking some part in negotiations, through the Ministry of Agriculture, on the general principle, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to give us a clearer statement than we have had up to the present, on whether the Government consider that they must have the approval of both sides of the industry before they introduce legislation, and on whether they are going to protract still further the negotiations which have been going on since September, before they determine what type of legislation they are going to introduce.
I am justified in declaring that we of the workers' side in agriculture have

accepted the principle of a national wages board. I press the right hon. Gentleman, in view of that declaration which has been given to the responsible Department, to say whether the Government still want to procrastinate and to delay before introducing this legislation. I am not seeking to extract from the right hon. Gentleman a statement on what the nature of this legislation will be. I only seek to know what is the position with regard to the principle of the establishment of a national wages board and whether they will now declare, with some degree of certainty, when this legislation will be introduced. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that agricultural workers of both organisations will not tolerate any further delay, from whichever section that delay may come. I press him, therefore, to give us a clear and definite declaration of when this legislation is likely to be introduced and whether the full principle of a national wages board will be accepted.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Colville: When my right hon. Friend indicated that he hoped that legislation would be introduced at an early date, he meant what he said. Obviously, I cannot give a precise date, but it will be introduced very soon indeed.

Mr. T. Williams: Before Easter?

Mr. Colville: Yes. In the case of the Scottish negotiations, with which I am more familiar, the hon. Member may rest assured that it is in the interests of a happy solution of this question that we should consider it together a little further. What may be found suitable in England may not be suitable in Scotland. In fact, some of the proposals adopted in England have been discussed with Scottish representatives from both sides of the industry, and both sides are intent on framing a scheme rather different from the English proposals and suitable to Scottish conditions. This necessitates further discussion. Here, again, without committing myself too strictly, I would only say that what is true of the English proposals is also true of the Scottish proposals.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 117.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving rights of riparian owners, etc.)

Nothing in Sections sixteen, seventeen or nineteen of this Act shall deprive any riparian owner or other person legally interested in the flow of the waters of any stream (including persons so interested in respect of fishing rights, water-cress beds and the washing or treatment of minerals) of any legal right of using such waters in a manner not inconsistent with the exercise of the powers conferred by

the said Sections or of any legal remedies if such legal rights or legal remedies were vested in or exercised by him or by his predecessors in title at the passing of this Act.—[Brigadier-General Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.45 p.m.

Brigadier-General Brown: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not think that I need say very much on this Clause, which is more or less self-explanatory. There are rights which may be affected, especially by powers of entry, and we think that some saving Clause of this kind should be made to give some protection, not only to owners, but to rates and taxes and those industries which may in some cases provide more food for the country than would be effected by an actual improvement in the land. It is a common Clause in Private Bills, and in the Surrey County Council Bills an almost exactly similar provision was made.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The only point which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants is a widening of Sub-section (1) of Clause 17. The new Clause which he has put on the Paper is not in an entirely satisfactory form, but if he will withdraw it, I will give an assurance that between now and the Report stage I will consider more appropriate words in consultation with him and put down an Amendment.

8.47 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I think we require some explanation from the Government about this concession to the landlords. After considerable debate the Government have ruled out any concessions in the matter of wages, but here is a new Clause sprung upon us, which the Government have evidently already arranged to accept, and we find an eleventh-hour concession to the landed interests in connection with a Bill solely designed for food production.

Mr. Ramsbotham: There happens to be a case here in which there is injustice and hardship, and I see no reason on earth why that should not be removed.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Improvement of roads.)

If the Minister during the period of the war is satisfied that the agricultural production of any land is being diminished by reason of the condition of the roads leading to such land and if he is satisfied that the cost of improving such roads or access to the land is reasonable, in view of the increased production which will result from such an improvement, the Minister may direct that the county council may prepare a scheme for the improvement of the roads concerned and after submitting the scheme to the Minister may,

with his approval, charge to the owners of the land benefited a sum equivalent to the increase in the value of the land; the scheme may provide that the cost payable by any owner shall be spread over five years.—(Mr. W. Roberts.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I only wish that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) were present to move this Clause. This is a problem which is very real in several of the Eastern counties. I can do no better than read a few sentences describing the condition of some of these roads, written 50 years ago, which I believe accurately describe them to-day:
In place of roads there are droves. A drove is a broad course, straight as an arrow, by means of which communication is had between one farm and another, and people pass from one village to another. These droves have ditches one on each side, dense in summer with bullrushes. No attempt is made to consolidate the soil in these droves other than by harrowing and rolling them in summer. In winter they are bogs. In summer they are dust. Wheeled conveyances can hardly get along the droves in winter or wet weather as the wheels sink to the axles.
Without further elaboration, it obviously presents a problem for the occupiers of both sides. I believe that in one district 1,000 tons of sugar beet were left in the ground because the roads were made impassable in the autumn and when the frost came the factories had ceased to deal with sugar beet. There are 40,000 acres in Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely which are affected by conditions of this sort. Clearly they are conditions which affect a large area of land and are reducing the capacity of that land to play its part in the Government's food production campaign. On an average one mile of road serves some 400 acres, and, as there are 40,000 acres involved, it is a substantial problem. As one mile serves as much as 400 acres, it will be realised that many private owners on either side are involved in any substantial mileage of road.
I understand that one of the county councils concerned arranged to have one piece of road dealt with on a basis in which the owners paid one-third, the county council one-third, and the Ministry of Transport one-third. One of the obstacles to extending that way of dealing with this problem is that it is difficult


to get a large number of owners to agree voluntarily to such an arrangement. Broadly speaking, the arrangement in the new Clause follows the type of arrangement used by catchment and other drainage boards, which make it possible for them to levy on the owners who border a new road or who will gain advantage from the road. It is likely that the Minister will tell me that the form of this new Clause is unsatisfactory from many points of view, but I would like to ask whether he can give some assurance that this problem will be dealt with by some more suitable Clause between now and the Report stage.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: Quite a long argument could justifiably be made on this point, because tens of thousands of acres are involved, and it is probable that there is no single step which would do so much to increase food production between now and the harvest of 1941 as this step. We have had a long Committee discussion, however, and I shall detain the Committee for as little time as I can. I rather agree with most of what was said by the hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause, more particularly with his deprecatory remarks at the end of his speech. I feel that this Clause would not do what he wants. He used a phrase about land being diminished and said that we could do anything for any land except where production was actually going on at this moment. For that and other reasons, this form of words would certainly not do. Nor is it easy to see what form of words would do. It is, however, essential that some form of words should be found in this Bill, or some way ought to be found outside the Bill, for providing roads in the Fenland mainly, and also in some other parts of Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, and other counties.
I would like to say a word about the definition of "road," because in discussions that I have had with various people it is often assumed that "road" means the sort of thing which carries traffic from London to York. If we were to ask for that kind of road, it could not be done economically, but that is not in the least what is wanted. The most that is wanted is the narrowest possible light concrete road, although possibly even less than that would do; or there could be the sort of concrete railroad which is used

particularly in France, and consists of two narrow tracks of concrete laid down to the gauge of farm carts. The more expensive of these two methods has been carried out in some parts of Cambridgeshire for as little as £1 a yard. I do not think there can be any doubt that it ought to be done, and done quickly. I beg the Government not merely to tell us that this new Clause will not do, but to tell us some way in which this practical difficulty will be met, because it will be a great reproach to the Government and to all of us here if, for want of doing this work, there is in the autumn of 1941 considerably less food in England than there might have been if the work had been put in hand this month or next month, when it ought to be begun.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It is clear that this new Clause is put down to raise the issue, because I can hardly think that the hon. Gentleman who moved it could imagine that in this form it would be welcomed in the agricultural districts. The Clause means that, except to the extent to which the land has improved in value, the cost will fall on the local ratepayers. That might mean in certain cases in, for instance, the county of Cambridge, that the town of Cambridge and other towns would pay a substantially increased rate in order to provide these roads. I imagine that some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) would object if the charge were too heavy. I imagine that that difficulty might also prevent anything being done on the Report stage, because anything which is introduced in the Bill to increase the charge on the rates will be out of order, it is clear that there is an agricultural problem represented in this new Clause which demands the urgent attention of the Government. This particular solution of throwing the whole cost on the ratepayers would evoke resentment even in the districts that benefited. The problem is so large in various parts that we must hope that the Government will do something from the Exchequer or in some other way to provide the kind of roads suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, or by some other means to make this land accessible when it is in the position described by the hon.
Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts). While my friends and I cannot support this new Clause, we realise that there is an agricultural problem that should be remedied, and we trust that the Government will deal with it.

8.59 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: All hon. Members who have spoken on this matter have relieved me of part of my responsibility, which is to deal with the terms of the new Clause. It seems to be agreed on all sides that it is not practical as it stands. It deals with all roads and does not distinguish between the roads with which we are trying to deal as part of this problem and other roads. There is another provision, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has pointed out, as regard the surplus cost falling on the rates. It would impose a novel burden on county councils, namely, the obligation of looking after what in many cases are private roads, and there is no provision as to the cost of upkeep.

Mr. W. Roberts: Part of my proposal is what the county councils concerned have asked for.

The Solicitor-General: I am not at all certain about that. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, recognize that the proposed new Clause went on to the Paper only the day before yesterday, and that there has been no opportunity of discussing this matter with the county councils. I will not go into technical details and weary the Committee by showing why the Clause just would not work as it stands, but it is obvious that the feeling of the Committee is that that is not a sufficient answer to the case that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Captain Briscoe) has also raised that case for a considerable period of time past. I have some personal interest in and knowledge of the matter, as I was a boy on Sedgemoor, where very much the same kind of problem existed—acres of fertile land which were unproductive only because they could not be reached in bad weather along the bad grass roads which alone led to them.
I want to give an assurance to the Committee that this problem is present to the mind of the Government and that it is by

no means the intention of my right hon. Friend, at a time when we are most anxious to bring into cultivation every acre of good land that we can, that we should concentrate our efforts on the comparatively poor land and leave rich, fertile land untouched merely because it is difficult to get at. I know that that assurance will be welcome to the hon. Gentleman and to others who have taken an interest in the matter. The question of how to deal with the matter is being explored very carefully. It is highly probable that we shall be able to deal with it without recourse to any added legislation. Suppose one takes two cases that present different problems. In one case there is a piece of fertile land uncultivated, at the end of a grass road which is owned by the owner of the land. If that were the situation it would be possible, in my view, to deal with it under Clause 22 of the Bill. One of the pre-requisites that the land is not being cultivated or is not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry as denned by the Act of 1923 is there, and therefore it will be possible for the work to be carried out.
That does not exhaust the matter, because there remains the case where access is by a long road over which either there is only an easement or ownership exists in somebody who is not the owner of the land that you want to cultivate. I do not think we can deal with that case under Clause 22; but under No. 51 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations we have power to carry out any necessary work. I can repeat the assurance that I have given that the precise methods by which we shall approach the matter are under active consideration. Hon. Gentlemen can rest assured that we are obliged to them for calling our attention afresh to the problem, and that we do not intend to let its significance escape us.

9.4 p.m.

Captain Briscoe: I wish to thank the Solicitor-General very warmly for the announcement that he has just made. I have been chasing this matter for many years with many Ministers of Agriculture and Ministers of Transport. I purposely did not endeavour to speak before the Solicitor-General, because I felt that I could not agree with the terms of the proposed new Clause. My main reason was that which was put forward by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that if there was a loss, and the


money could not be recouped from the owners of the land, the loss would fall on the ratepayers. That seemed to me to be most unreasonable. The matter ought to be dealt with either by the internal drainage boards or by the war agricultural committees, but it really does not matter to us how it is done, so long as it is done, and done fairly.
I would say one word about the unique proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). He thought that wheel tracks would do. I can assure the Minister that they would not do at all in many Fen roads, unless you wanted the horses that went along them to be drowned between the tracks. Hon. Gentlemen must not think that that is all it is necessary to do in order to make these roads fit for carrying loaded vehicles. I again thank the Solicitor-General for his announcement, and I hope there will be no delay in carrying it into effect.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Haslam: I would add my own appreciation of what the Solicitor-General has said, and would call attention to a small point relating to culverts. In many parts of the country the culverts need to be brought up to date, because they have to carry the heavy vehicles which are now becoming increasingly common and which are a necessity for the modern cultivation of the soil. I hope that the Minister will not forget the question of strengthening the culverts.

The Solicitor-General: That point will be borne in mind.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I also would thank the Solicitor-General for the assurance which he has given. The main thing, of course, is to get the work done, but the way that it is done is also of some importance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First, Second, Third, and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to certain drainage schemes.)

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I beg to move, in page 29, line 9, after "of," to insert:

the land to be drained in pursuance of.
This is consequential on an Amendment which was made in Clause 14.

Amendment agreed to.

9.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 29, line 23, after "owners," to insert "and occupiers."
I would like to refer in this connection to the third Amendment of the series which I have on the Order Paper, in line 24, after "scheme," to insert:
and to the owner of any other land which would in the opinion of the Board be affected by the carrying out of the scheme.
I do not wish to move the second Amendment, in line 24, after "scheme," to insert:
and to such other persons as the Minister may direct.
The whole point is to make sure that everyone concerned receives full notice of schemes that are being made. It is necessary for occupiers as well as owners to be told. The interest of farmers may be very seriously affected by these schemes. The third Amendment to which I have referred is more or less a quotation from Sub-section (2) of Clause 28 referring to Scotland.

Mr. Colville: My right hon. Friend yesterday, in replying to another Amendment, indicated that he would consider the point and that it might be raised on the Report stage, and on that the Amendment was withdrawn. It would, therefore, not be right to make this consequential Amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 29, line 24, after "scheme," to insert:
and to the owner of any other land which would in the opinion of the Board be affected by the carrying out of the scheme.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Colville: There is a difficulty attached to this that, if notice has to be given to all owners who might be affected by schemes of this kind, great delay might arise. The circumstances are not quite parallel because in Scotland we are dealing with rather a different type of drainage from what is proposed here, but the Minister will request catchment boards to send copies of the scheme to the drainage


board affected, which should cover the point that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.12 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 29, line 32, at the end, to insert:
who shall after considering any such objections as aforesaid which shall not have been withdrawn either approve with or without modifications or disapprove the scheme:
Provided that a scheme as approved by the Minister shall not include any land not included in the area of the scheme as set out in the draft of the scheme under paragraph 1 of this Schedule.
This Amendment is of considerable importance, because these schemes will affect owners of land and others to a great extent and may throw heavy charges on them. Objection may be laid before the Board, but it does not go any further. The Board considers it and passes the scheme on to the Minister. There is no need for the Board to tell the Minister that any objections have been made, and the Minister has no knowledge of anyone objecting to the scheme. It is only fair that owners should have some appeal beyond the Board. In the ordinary course there would probably be local inquiries, but we are anxious not to cause any delay in getting schemes put forward and, if the Board is made to tell the Minister that there are objections, that would be a fair way of treating it.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: If this Amendment had been moved in peace-time, I do not think there would be very much doubt as to the reception it would have got. It seems reasonable, but, as my hon. and gallant Friend has indicated himself, in war-time delay is one of the things that we are most anxious to avoid, and there would be a risk of considerable delay in carrying out schemes. Realizing that this is a war-time Measure, I ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment, so that there may be no obstacle to prevent the utmost speed being attained.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Why should it lead to delay? The Minister will only have to read a few paragraphs or a page or two more and consider whether he will support the objection or

not. To read it through and make his decision would not take more than half-an-hour more.

9.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I should like to support what the Minister has said, because I am afraid it will entail delay. It is going to be very hard for catchment boards to get on with these schemes quickly. I was rather sorry when my hon. and gallant Friend moved the previous Amendment. The more people you notify, the more objection there is to the schemes. The very fact of objection involves opposition. What the country wants is to get the land drained as quickly as possible. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment and will take the assurance from me that catchment boards will do all in their power to consult those interested.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend has not read the Schedule. Paragraph 3 says:
After considering any objections duly made to the draft of a scheme and making any modifications therein which they think expedient having regard to any such objection, the Board may submit the scheme to the Minister for his approval.
All they have to do is to submit the objections with the scheme. They simply pass it on to the Minister for him to read through.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: It is not quite so simple as that. The objections cannot be read through and put into the waste-paper basket. They have to be referred to the catchment board. That all takes time and involves delay, and for that reason I repeat my appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend not to press the Amendment so that we may have no obstacle in the way of getting on with the work.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: What my right hon. Friend says is that he does not want proper justice done. As that is his view, and as I have not found much support, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 20].

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1935.

PROCLAMATION OF EMERGENCY.

9.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): I beg to move:
That the Proclamation of Emergency made on 3rd September 1939, by the Governor-General of India under Section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th November 1939, be approved.
This Resolution deals with a point of comparatively restricted application. By Section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935, it is provided that if the Governor-General has declared by Proclamation that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India is threatened either by war or by internal disturbance, the Central Legislature shall have power to make laws for a Province with respect to any matters as to which the Province has power to make laws. By an Emergency Act passed by Parliament here on 1st September last, it was provided further that if such a Proclamation had been issued the Centre should not merely be able to legislate on provincial matters, but also to make statutory the rules for the regulation of such matters, and in addition to exercise, if need be, a general supervisory control over the executive actions of the Provincial Governments. Section 102 of the Act further provides that a copy of any Proclamation of Emergency must be presented to each House of Parliament and that it shall cease to operate after six months, unless approved by Resolution of both Houses. A Proclamation of Emergency was issued by the Governor-General at the outbreak of war on 3rd September and has already been presented to this House, and the Resolution which I am now moving is required in order that the Proclamation shall continue to operate and shall not lapse on 3rd March as it otherwise would do.
The object of a Proclamation of Emergency is to enable the Central Government to exercise for purposes connected with the prosecution of the war a much wider range of powers, legislative and executive, than the Constitution, with its rigid division of powers between Center and Provinces, normally allows it. In time of war under modern conditions unity of command is no less essential in the administrative than in the military

sphere: and co-ordination of effort is also essential. Apart from the existence of this Proclamation and the action which can be taken under it. any matter coming within the Provincial Legislative List in the Government of India Act, such, for example, as the control of prices or the requisitioning of buildings and land or the power to declare particular places to be protected, would have to be left to the 11 separate Provincial Governments and Legislatures to deal with or not as they thought fit, and any action taken in those fields by the Central Government for war purposes would be liable to challenge as unconstitutional.
The chief legislative result of this procedure has been the Act known as the Defence of India Act, which corresponds very closely to the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act in this country. It was enacted by Ordinance by the Governor-General in the first instance, but was subsequently re-enacted by the Indian Legislature. A great deal of the action taken under the Defence of India Act—as indeed is the case under the Emergency Powers Act here—is provided for by rule, and these rules are expressed in the Indian Act as being—(and here I quote the words themselves)—
for securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order, for the efficient prosecution of the war; or for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.
a formula which follows almost exactly the wording used in our Emergency Powers (Defence) Act to describe the scope of the Defence Regulations to be made under that Act. Just as in this country, so in India, the rules cover very wide fields. I need not trouble the House with a comprehensive list of the subjects to which the rules refer, but I will mention a few of them to give an idea of the field covered. They deal with such matters as the control of signalling, telegraphy, postal communications and so on; restrictions on foreigners; prevention of prejudicial acts and control of information; preparations for defence; control of arms and explosives; control of shipping and aircraft; control of essential supplies and work; control of trading with the enemy and control of enemy firms.
But it is by no means the case that the powers conferred by these rules are con-


ferred only upon the Central Executive. Many of them are conferred upon the Provincial Governments themselves; rules for example, dealing with such things as air-raid precautions, the control of lighting, the control of meetings and processions, censorship of the Press, the requisitioning of buildings, and so on. In one particular case, and I think a very important case, that is to say the control of prices, though the power was conferred by the rules upon the Central Government, it was actually delegated by the Central Government to the Provincial Governments, which have made valuable use of their powers and have done much to prevent profiteering and undue rise in prices.
Finally, as regards the general executive control over the actions of Provincial Governments conferred by the Act passed by Parliament in September last, the Government of India have reported that in no case has the Governor-General had occasion so far to use the special powers conferred by the Act to enforce directions from the Centre in pursuance of this provision—requests and suggestions from the Centre have always so far been accepted and acted upon. I think I have now said enough to make it clear to the House that it is essential that we should pass this Resolution so as to enable the continuance in India of all the emergency powers and regulations which are so necessary and so vital to the great effort which India is making in the prosecution of the war.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: One cannot oppose this Order. Some kind of Order is obviously necessary at this time, but in this House we always watch with a very jealous eye the giving of autocratic powers to the Executive. In the case of the action that is taken over here the real check on the Executives the existence of the House of Commons and the possibility therefore of raising any matters of abuse of those powers. In India you have, through circumstances which I am not going to discuss at length, a position of constitutional difficulty, and you have had in many Provinces the properly elected governments yielding place to authoritative governments. Therefore, there has not been quite the same effect in giving powers to the Centre as against the Pro-

vinces, because in so many instances the Provinces have already, by the action of the elected members of the Legislature, handed over the Executive to non-popular government.
I think we cannot object to this. I do not want to say anything this evening that would in any way add to the difficulties of the Indian situation. We are all following very closely the efforts that are being made by the Viceroy to bring together the leaders of the various Indian parties, in order that India may now advance towards self-government. We should feel a great deal happier about this Order if we had that degree of concord among the Indian parties, if we had any of the Provincial Governments responsible to Parliamentary majorities operating in those Provinces, and the beginnings of more responsible government at the centre. But, the position being as it is, I hope that no effort will be spared to try to bring forward, even during the war, increased democratic control of their affairs by the Indian people.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I want to say only a few words to supplement what has been said by the right hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I believe there are others besides members of his party who feel very much sympathy with the point of view he has expressed. While no one in the House would wish to add tithe difficulties of the Government of India at this time, and while everyone appreciates the efforts that are being made by the Viceroy to get unity, many of us would also desire that there should be some opportunity, even in the course of the war, for Indian opinion to be more closely associated with the Government of India, and we should take this opportunity of expressing our earnest hope that the efforts now being made in India may be crowned with success.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Proclamation of Emergency made on 3rd September, 1939, by the Governor-General of India under Section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th November, 1939, be approved.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, AND GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

9.32 p.m.

Sir H. O'Neill: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935 praying that the Government of India (Orissa and Sind Governors' Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
This proposed Address to His Majesty, and the other six that follow on the Paper, deal with a number of different matters. I would propose, with your concurrence, Sir, to deal in my statement with the first four and the sixth and seventh Orders, all of which deal with points which I do not think raise any matter of difficulty. The fifth Order—the Distribution of Revenues (Amendment) Order—deals with a rather more important point, and I should like to speak about that separately.
The first Order is the Government of India Act, 1935 (Orissa and Sind Governors' Allowances and Privileges Order). The purpose of this Order is to extend, by three years in the case of Orissa, and two years in the case of Sind, the period of three years which was prescribed by Order-in-Council in March, 1937, as the time within which the building of new Governors' residences, the cost of which was to be charged on the revenues of the Provinces, was to be completed. The necessity for the extension of time arises from a variety of reasons, including, in the case of Orissa, delay in the selection of the site. New and improved residences are required in Sind and Orissa, because these were two Provinces created under the Act of 1935, and no suitable accommodation for a Governor was available.
The second Order is the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) (Amendment) Order, 1940. By the enactment of the Government of India Act, 1935, it became necessary to make numerous adaptations over the whole field of Indian Statute law, both Central and Provincial, in order to bring it into conformity with the distribution of powers effected by the new Constitution. The object of the Amendments to the original Adaptation of Laws Order which are proposed to be made by this Order, is to make the necessary adaptations required

in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the India and Burma (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act passed a few weeks ago, the object of which was to make it clear that jurisdiction over certain Indian universities is within the power of the Provinces and not of the Centre.
The third Order is the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1940. The proposed Amendment to this Order has two purposes, both of which arise out of the passage of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act recently. Firstly, it provides for the formal changes required when the Government of Sind convert their Judicial Commissioner's Court into a Chief Court, as they are now empowered to do. Secondly, it provides for the consequential Amendment required by the provision empowering the Governor-General to appoint a High Court judge to act temporarily as a judge of the Federal Court.
The next Order, the fourth, is the Government of India (Federal Court) (Amendment) Order, 1940. This Order also provides for some further purely technical Amendments now required in the definition of "Acting Judge." I will leave the fifth Order and refer to it more fully in a moment.
The sixth Order deals with Burma. It is the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1940. Section 134 of the Government of Burma Act gave power to prescribe by Order-in-Council the terms of the various financial adjustments between India and Burma arising out of the separation of Burma from India. This is the fourth Order of this character to be made, and it deals with the share which it is proposed that Burma shall contribute towards the cost of Central pensions payable in respect of service in India up to the date of separation. The settlement forms the subject of an agreement between the Governments of India and Burma and it provides for an annual payment by Burma of 7½per cent. of the actual sum paid from Indian Central revenues, in respect of these pensions in each year.
Paragraph 5 of the proposed Order deals with a separate and distinct matter and is consequential on the enactment of Section 15 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1940. It provides for the transfer to Indian revenues of a sum of


43½lakhs of rupees, representing duty on a quantity of motor spirit which was produced in Burma before, and collected in India, after separation.
The seventh Order also deals with Burma. It is the Government of Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1940. Under Section 68 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, provision may be made by Order-in-Council for the finances of the Federal Fund of the Shan States and the settlement of payments as between the Federal Fund and the revenues of Burma. Under an Order-in-Council made in 1937 it was provided that for the first two years the payments should be settled by the Governor in his discretion. Meanwhile the whole financial position as between Burma and the Shan States has been exhaustively investigated by the financial authorities in Burma, whose recommendations have been generally endorsed by the Governor and are incorporated in this proposed Order. The object of the present Order is to provide a settlement for the next three years ending on 31st March, 1942. After this period has elapsed further experience will have been gained in the light of which it is hoped that a more durable settlement of this complicated matter may be reached.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I have looked at these Orders and they all deal with either minor or technical matters. There are only two points about which I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. First, as to the Order dealing with the finances of Burma and India with regard to oil, do I understand that this is approved not only by the Governor of India but also of Burma, and, on the last Order, has the settlement been agreed by the authorities in the Shan States?

9.42 p.m.

Sir H. O'Neill: With the leave of the House I will reply. The right hon. Gentleman asks me, with regard to the first Order dealing with Burma, whether the Burmese Government approved of the settlement with regard to oil. What happened was that there was a certain amount of motor spirit produced in Burma before Burma was separated from India. That motor spirit was shipped to India and the excise duty upon it was paid when it reached the port in India to which it was consigned. The Indian authorities natur-

ally claimed the right to have that duty which was, in fact, paid by the consumer in India. Until the Act which dealt with the matter was passed the other day, Burma had a technical and legal claim to this money. The Government of Burma realised perfectly well that their claim was purely technical and I do not think they have made a serious claim that they should have it. This Order is to legalise the real position—namely, that this duty should belong to the Government of India. With regard to the other point about the Shan States I understand that the arrangement that this is to last for only three years has been come to between the Governor of Burma and the Commissioner of the Shan States. I do not know if my right hon. Friend has ever been to the States. I have not, but he probably knows what they are and, roughly, how they are governed through a Commissioner who has the advice of an advisory council of the Federation. I understand the matter has been agreed between the Commissioner and the Governor.

Mr. Attlee: And the Council?

Sir H. O'Neill: That I could not say.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) (Amendment) Order, 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir H. O'Neill]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir H. O'Neill]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India


Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) (Amendment) Order, 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir H. O'Neill]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Distribution of Revenues) (Amendment) Order 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

9.45 p.m.

Sir H. O'Neill: This Order, which is the fifth on the list, raises a point of rather more substance than the others with which I have already dealt and I propose to deal with it at greater length and to explain it in considerable detail. Section 138 of the Government of India Act, 1935, provided that taxes on income in India should be levied and collected by the Central Government, and laid down the principles governing its distribution between the Central and Provincial Governments. Broadly speaking, the scheme of distribution was that the proceeds of Income Tax were to be shared between the Centre and the Provinces, but that for a period to be denned after the commencement of the Act the Centre should retain for itself a part of the Provincial share until such time as it had been able to adjust its finances to the new conditions. The interim period was to be divided into two sections during the first of which the Centre would retain such sum as might be prescribed and during the second of which this retained portion would be given up by equal annual reductions. The length of the two periods and the sum to be retained by the Centre out of the Provincial share were to be settled by Order-in-Council.
As soon as the Act became law it was therefore necessary to settle these points by Order-in-Council in accordance with the provisions of the Section, and as the matter was a complicated one and was of great importance to the future financial prospects both of the Centre and of the Provinces, the Government decided to ask Sir Otto Niemeyer to investigate the whole situation and make his recommendations. He went out to India, made an exhaustive examination of the position, and reported

in April, 1936. The conclusions at which he arrived were subsequently embodied in the Distribution of Revenues Order made in July, 1936. Sir Otto Niemeyer recommended that each of the prescribed periods should be five years, and that the percentage of the divisible heads of Income Tax which should go to the Provinces should be 50 per cent. It is that half, or 50 per cent., with which we are dealing in the proposed Amendment to the Order-in-Council which is now before the House. Sir Otto Niamey had to decide what proportion of the Provinces' half-share of Income Tax was to be retained by the Central Government during the first five-year period, and he laid down a formula which has governed the distribution during the two financial years which have already elapsed since the Act came into operation.
That formula was that the Central Government should retain sufficient out of the share of the Provinces to bring the Central share, together with the contribution of the railways to general revenues, up to 13 crores of rupees (£9,750,000) and that the Provinces should get the balance. Under this formula in respect of 1937–38 the Provinces received 1·63 crores (£1,200,000); in respect of 1938–39 they received 1·53 crores (£1,100,000), which was in each year the excess over the 13 crores (£9,750,000) retained by the Centre. Sir Otto Niemeyer's formula was produced in time of peace and clearly did not contemplate a situation such as now confronts us. The war will have two main effects on the Budget of the Central Indian Government. In the first place, it will mean considerably less revenue from Customs owing to lower imports, and, in the second place, it will mean greatly increased expenditure on defence services. On the other hand the two sources of revenue which will show substantial increases under war conditions are taxes on income and receipts from the railways; and under the existing formula any increase under either of these heads will go almost wholly to the Provinces. It has become obvious, therefore, that some alteration in the method of distribution is necessary if the Central Government is to be saved from the prospect of a heavy deficit. The Amendment which we are now considering effects the change which is proposed.
Under the new formula it is proposed, in the first place, to eliminate the receipts


from the railways from the pool to be distributed. This was an extraneous source of revenue not dealt with under Section 138, but brought in by Sir Otto Niemeyer in order to increase the amount which would be available for distribution at a time when India was beginning to emerge from the great depression of the early 1930's. With the railway receipts eliminated, we are, therefore, back again al the strict provisions of Section 138. Secondly, the new formula provides that the Central Government shall retain a definite pecuniary amount of the Provincial share, which it is proposed shall be 4½ crores (£3,400,000). This will leave the Provinces with the difference between this sum and their half share in the pool, and therefore, with a 50–50 share in any expansion of income tax revenue. The sum of 4½ crores (£3,400,000) has been decided upon because it is roughly the average amount which the Centre has actually retained so far under the old formula, and there can be no fairer or safer guide than this. The amounts retained by the Centre have been—in 1937–38, 4·3 crores (£3,200,000); in 1938–30, 5·05 crores (£3,800,000); and estimated for 1939–40, 4·54 crores (£3,400,000). Taking the average of these sums a round figure of 4½ crores is obtained, though it should be noted that there is a difference in favour of the Provinces of 13 lakhs (nearly £100,000) between the round figure and the actual average. As I have just said, this figure of 4½ crores (£3,400,000) has been fixed as the part of the Provincial share to be retained by the Centre during the last three years of the first five-year period.
The House may be interested to have an example of the application of the two formulas to figures which have actually been realised. If you take the average of the two years 1937–38 and 1938–39, the divisible income tax was Rs.12.5 crores (£9,400,000) and the railway contribution was Rs.2.1 crores (£1,500,000), making a total of Rs.14.6 crores (£10,900,000). Out of this the Centre's share was Rs.13 crores (£9,750,000) and that of the Provinces was Rs.1.6 crores (£1,200,000). If the new formula had been applied in these two years the average result would have been that the Centre would have received Rs.12.8 crores (£9,600,000) and the Provinces Rs.1.8 crores (£1,300,000). In other words, in respect of the first two years since the constitution came into

operation the Provinces would have got actually more under the new formula than under the old one. As the divisible pool expands, however, the new formula will operate more in favour of the Centre. The fact is that if, as seems certain in time of war, the proceeds of income tax show considerable expansion, the Provinces will in future get a fair share of that expansion, though not as much as they would have got under the old formula. For instance, in the year 1939–40, which is now drawing to a close, I think I can safely say, without giving away any budget secrets, that the amount of income tax which the Provinces will receive under the new formula will be nearly half as much again as the estimate which was made under the old formula at the beginning of the year, and that next year they are going to do even better.
These proposals are put forward as a fair and equitable solution of quite unforeseen conditions which have arisen out of the war. They should enable the Central Government to retain sufficient of the Income Tax revenue to maintain its solvency under war conditions and at the same time they will give to the Provinces, if Income Tax expands as expected, larger sums than they could ever have contemplated as possible at the time when the Niemeyer award was made.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: This subject of the division of revenues between the Provinces and the Centre in India is very complicated. I gather from what right hon. Gentlemen has said that the yardstick which was taken for the division has proved to be too flexible in time of war and therefore a change has to be made. The only question I would like to ask is, how was the new arrangement arrived at? Is it just a decision of the India Office, or has it been evolved by discussion between the Centre Government and the Provincial governments in India? Is there general agreement, or is it an award made between contesting parties?

9.58 p.m.

Sir H. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman has asked whether this arrangement was arrived at by agreement. The position is that when it became obvious that some change had to be made, the Provinces were consulted and various suggestions were made by them. Some of them agreed


to the proposal which was then put up; others were more lukewarm, and some of the Provinces, definitely, did not like it. As a result of those consultations, very considerable modifications were made in the scheme, in directions favourable to the Provinces. The scheme which is now put forward is the result of those discussions which took place between the Centre and the Provinces and is very much more favourable to them than the original proposal.

Miss Wilkinson: Have any proposals been made by the Government by which the Provincial Governments, who feel considerable financial stringency owing to the number of calls which they have to meet on revenues which are admittedly inadequate, will have made up to them the amount of any sum which they lose under the new suggestion?

Sir H. O'Neill: I do not think that any proposal has actually been made in the exact form suggested by the hon. Lady, but she will appreciate from what I have said that the Provincial Governments are going to get very much more out of the Income Tax under this arrangement than they would have thought possible at the time when the original award was made.

Ordered "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

Motion made and Question proposed.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Ordered "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir H. O'Neill]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

Motion made and Question proposed:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday next.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (POSTPONEMENT OF VALUATIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

10.0 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to postpone the date of operation of the new valuation lists for London and the provinces. They are not due to come into force until April, 1941, and that date may seem to be a long time away, but the House will appreciate that the revaluation, particularly in London and the larger centres, is a heavy administrative undertaking and involves a number of statutory stages which would make the procedure in itself a long one. The preliminary work would normally have started in the autumn of last year. Even before the war representations were beginning to be made that the weight of A.R.P., civil defence and other emergency work was going to make it very difficult to undertake this work. These representations were, of course, renewed with much greater force as soon as war broke out, and, indeed, it was found that it would be administratively impracticable to undertake the work in the conditions which then obtained or have since obtained.
Furthermore, the instability of values under war conditions makes it, I think, at the present time, inappropriate for a general revaluation to last for five years, even although the administrative task was perfectly simple. So, after careful consideration, an answer was made in September to a Parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for Camberwell, North (Mr. Ammon) that it was the Government's intention to take steps to secure postponement. A circular was issued to local authorities informing them of this decision and exhorting them to maintain the necessary machinery for dealing with interim applications for the review of current assessments. As far as is known this advice has been followed. The preliminary work of revaluation has not been started, but assessment committees are sitting to consider proposals for amendments to the lists. We have taken steps to consult with bodies representing the London and provincial rating authorities, and also the Central Valuation


Committee who have indicated that they are in favour of the course which we propose to take. The Bill makes provision for continuing the life of the existing valuation lists until a date to be fixed by Order in Council not later than the April next but one following the end of the war. The new lists would be brought into force at an earlier date if conditions permitted and revaluation was felt, after consultation with the authorities concerned, to be necessary. The latter part of Subsection (1) of Clause I makes necessary consequential provisions. In London amendments of the current valuation list are incorporated in the list itself in each of the first four years of the quinquennium by what is called a supplemental list. There is no provision for such a list being made in the last year of the quinquennium because the new valuation list itself is then being made. If, however, the life of the present lists is to be prolonged beyond the normal five years, it is necessary to provide for the making of a supplemental list each year until the last year of their life.
Such is a brief explanation of the provisions of this Bill, but I know that some of my hon. Friends desire to raise certain points connected with the present valuation list, the list which is to be prolonged if the Bill is accepted. It is generally agreed that this Bill should go through, but there are undoubtedly points which, particularly in London, are acutely felt, and on these I shall listen with interest to what hon. Members may say. We do not close our minds to the fact that many new problems are now arising, and we shall be most willing to give attention to any review of these which may be given by hon. Members in the present Debate.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman has been commendably brief at this hour of the evening, and I only regret that there are so many points to raise that I shall not be able to be quite as brief. There are certain things we ought to know about the existing law as far as the provinces are concerned owing to the peculiar situation that reigns there. The problems of rating arising from the law in London and from the law in the provinces are so separate that we had better discuss them separately. With regard to the country outside London, the third valuation list has already been postponed

once and the preparation of the list was delayed when war broke out. In June, 1937, the Central Valuation Committee issued a memorandum to the rating authorities urging them when preparing the new valuation list to adhere closely to the definition of "gross value" in the 1925 Act, particularly in connection with the assessment of dwelling houses.
When the historian has a chance of seeing the period between the two wars in perspective, he will say that one of the great social changes that occurred was the enormous growth in the number of small owner-occupiers. It has meant a great change, part of which we are feeling in the war with regard to the difficulties which serving soldiers have found in meeting their payments on the mortgages that have been granted. I have an extraordinary example of the way in which this affects particular parts of the country. I was handed by the chief public assistance officer for Surrey a list of over 100 names of men serving in the Forces, whose wives had applied for public assistance because the allowances paid, prior to the grant of the special allowances, were inadequate. This was so staggering a figure that I wrote to my own constituency to inquire of the chief public assistance officer whether he had at that stage had any similar applications. I had an answer to say that no relative of a man serving in the Forces had applied for public assistance. When I analysed the Surrey list it was evident that the reason for the large number in Surrey was that people in the suburban area of the county have been forced between the two wars to live in the owner-occupied houses and are paying in mortgage interest a figure that is out of all comparison with anything they would have expected to pay before the Great War as rent. I believe that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite think the increase in the owner-occupier class has been not altogether unbeneficial to the country. I want to insist that it has created a great social problem.
One of the problems that confronted the rating authorities and the Ministry of Health immediately prior to the war was the effect that a strict enforcement of the ordinary law of gross value would have had on that very large body of ratepayers, if the advice of the Central Valuation Committee had been carried out. As we know, a departmental committee was appointed to advise the Minister on the situ-


ation that was created. It was appointed in July, 1938, with these terms of reference:
to consider allegations which have been made that a strict application to certain classes of property of the existing law of valuation for rating purposes would cause undue hardship; and, if those allegations are found to be justified, to report what amendment of the law is desirable.
That committee has reported. I understand that the report reached the Minister before the outbreak of the war. On 14th November last, the hon. Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) put a Question to the Minister, to which he received the following answer:
The Departmental Committee have completed their report butting view of the projected postponement of the new valuation lists and other considerations arising out of the war, I do not think that publication of the report at the present time would serve a useful purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1939; col. 568, Vol. 353.]
I am sure that the Minister would agree that the longer the preparation of the third valuation lists is postponed the more urgent will become this problem and the greater necessity there will be for the report to be published, for into be examined, and, I imagine, for some legislation to be passed, to deal with what would otherwise be the intolerable position in which thousands of people in the neighbourhood of London, and the suburbs of other large towns, would find themselves, if the ordinary law of gross value were applied to their property. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would give us some indication tonight that he proposed in the not distant future to publish the report, and, before the authorities set about the task of compiling their third draft valuation lists, to promote legislation that would give them some guidance in dealing with the problem.
If the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends want to lose the 100 safe seats that they now have in the neighbourhood of London, I am sure that the one way in which they can do so is to continue the existing law and to apply it rigorously to those owner-occupiers. It would be the one thing that would persuade many people in suburban areas around London to fall in behind the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

The right hon. Gentleman must know, from the statements which he has received from his hon. Friends in the neighbourhood of London, that this is one of the problems that, in famous words, "will brook no delay," once it is decided to go on with the third valuation lists. I speak with some hesitation on the position inside London, for the reason that I have given. I believe that the more one understands rating law outside London the less one is qualified to speak upon rating law inside London. I wish that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom I know would apply the same rule in the reverse direction. I am sure that intimate knowledge of rating law inside London is not always the best qualification for speaking on rating law outside London.
It leaps to the eye that the problems that have arisen out of evacuation—I do not mean so much the official scheme as voluntary evacuation schemes which have been carried out by firms and householders—have created difficulties inside London (attributable, as I understand it, to the peculiar way in which the London list is altered once it has been compiled) for individual ratepayers, for certain boroughs, probably some more than others, and for the London County Council. These, as the war proceeds, may compel the Government to bring in some legislation which will enable this situation to be met. I do not think I can safely say more with regard to London than that this situation must be recognised and that it will be the duty of the Government before the position becomes intolerable to take such action as will enable the ratepayers and the local authorities to face the new situation in an atmosphere of reality.
I understand—I say this with great fear and trembling—that one of the things that govern the position inside London is that, if there is a general cause of alteration in values, that cannot be taken into account during an interim period, and certain people say it is difficult to dispute the proposition that the war is a general cause. It is certainly a rather all-pervading cause of most things at the moment. It is clear, however, that even the law affects different people in different degrees, and probably affects the value of property inside as large an area as the County of London in different places in different degrees, and must create for


those responsible for the administration of the law, and those who have to live under it in London, very grave difficulties which call for urgent attention. Outside London, of course, there is the problem of the delay in getting further uniformity of assessment, which was the declared aim of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and the task of the County Valuation Committees in respect of that work is, of course, now impeded and, with the owner-occupier problem bulking very largely in most of these areas, has been virtually brought to a standstill. It is very difficult to see how the wheels will ever be started again until some quite wide and sweeping legislation with regard to rating and valuation has been passed.
Outside London, as I understand it, there is not quite the same difficulty in dealing with the variations which are now taking place in the values of property. I speak as an ex-chairman of a county valuation committee who has had some experience of trying to promote uniformity and seeing that the work is done with reasonable expedition. I think that position, in spite of the war, and even if this Bill becomes law in its present form, was fairly accurately described by the Secretary of State for Air when he was Minister of Health. Speaking in the House on 18th March, 1938, he said:
My only other observation is that the Bill limits the postponement"—
that is, the first postponement of the Act of 1925—
to the new lists to be made for revaluation, as was recommended by the Committee, and that it does not curtail or prohibit the making of amendments, under the current list, which enables amendment to be made at any time upon cause shown. I have heard suggestions made about local authorities, but I have no doubt that they will observe the spirit of this legislation to the full. There is certainly no danger of any wholesale revaluation being undertaken by these means, but it is important to preserve the right to make current amendments when it is clear that an assessment is not in conformity with the general level of assessments in the area. It would not be right as a result of this legislation either, on the one hand, to prevent a ratepayer from securing a just reduction of his liability if such is warranted during the period of the postponement or, on the other hand, to prevent the amendment of an assessment where it is clear that the particular ratepayer is not bearing his due share of the common burden."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1938; Vol. 333, col. 793.]

I understand that the present Bill in no way vitiates the statement then made by the Minister of Health.

Mr. Spens: Outside London.

Mr. Ede: I hoped I had made it clear that in this matter I was dealing with the position outside London, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer me on that point. After the outbreak of war, on 22nd September, 1939, the Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Health circularised the local authorities with this statement:
The Minister recommends that no further step should be taken at present towards the preparation of the new lists, but county valuation committees, assessment committees and rating authorities should endeavour as far as possible to maintain whatever organization may be necessary for dealing with any questions which may arise in relation to the lists now in force.
I gather that at that time the legal advisers of the Ministry shared the view which I have just expressed. I think it is clear, therefore, that during the period of the war this cannot be the last piece of rating legislation that we shall see. Even allowing for two years after the end of the emergency, as is provided for in this Bill, it will probably be necessary during the war to have some machinery established by law that will enable the work of revaluation to be undertaken as soon as possible after the emergency has ended, if we have not been compelled by changed circumstances throughout the country, which none of us can foresee to-night, to undertake the work earlier.
I want to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the period of postponement we are now agreeing to ought not to be passed merely in idleness by those people who have to have regard to the framework of the law in this matter. I suggest that a good deal of the law with regard to rating and valuation has reached a highly hypothetical state in recent years. We all know that the basis is the hypothetical tenant who, I understand, is still garbed in the somewhat ample garments of the days of Queen Elizabeth, and really from 1601 down to to-day there has been no fundamental change in the theoretical basis of English rating valuation.
The result is that, at the moment, the most ridiculous anomalies abound. I suggest that this period of postponement


ought to be used to examine some of those anomalies. I will take one, which is constantly before me. What hypothetical tenant would pay anything for the privilege of educating children in elementary schools at a net loss to himself of anything from £10 to £20 a year? Yet if a child is educated in a council school the most extraordinary arrangements have to be made, by county conferences, to agree on a basis for the different standards of council schools that have been provided since the Education Act of 1870, whereas if the child is educated in an elementary voluntary school the Ragged Schools Act says that the school shall not be assessed.
I suggest that another thing that calls for attention during this period of postponement is the rating of public utility undertakings, because where a local authority is not the owner of the undertaking, on occasion an effort is made to get a considerable amount of indirect rates out of the ratepayers, through the form of a very high assessment of the undertaking. For instance, of the cost of generating and distributing electricity in this country, 14 per cent. is rates—a proportion which I think it would be very difficult indeed to justify on any real basis of the hypothetical tenant. When the public utility undertaking happens to be a joint electricity authority, which is compelled to carry on without making a profit, it is very difficult to see what hypothetical tenant would pay rent for the privilege of supplying his neighbors with electricity without a profit, but with the risk of a loss. There may be such people. The hon. Member for South Corydon (Sir H. Williams) has an extensive acquaintance among the electricity undertakers of the country, but do not think he has found one who would be willing to carry on the business on those terms, and to pay a rent for it.
I apologies for the length of time I am taking, but the ramifications of this problem, as presented to-night, are so wide, and I do not want it to be said at some future date, "That point was not made by the hon. Member when he addressed the House on the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Bill; therefore, it is something which has arisen since." I promise the House that I will not deal with all the topics, tempting as they are, that will come up, but there

is one thing that one is bound to say, especially from this side of the House. A fundamental wrong in our rating system is the fact that it depends so largely on the taxation of improvements. I see that even the lateness of the hour does not drive my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) from his post; he may elaborate that point at greater length. I am quite sure that, for the reasons I have given, a basis that depends on the structure of 1601—[An Hon. Member: "1606."]—Really, if there is one thing that I thought Was sure of, it is the date of the first Poor Law Act. I know that it was passed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and she was gathered to her father in 1603. Although I may be wrong, I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman is wrong in the date that he has chosen. A system that is based on an England so remote in its social structure from our time as the England of 1601 calls aloud for consideration and for drastic reform.
My hon. Friends and I hope that, while we agree to this Measure and recognize that some interim legislation may have to be passed to deal with the problems that may become very acute in the changes that may be effected by the war, this period of postponement will be used by the Government for the consideration of the fundamental issues and difficulties that lie under and behind our present rating system.

10.31 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member, whom I am sometimes inclined to call the hon. Member for Surrey, though he represents a Northern constituency. I am a little disappointed that we are not going to have the guidance to-night apparently of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who in these matters is regarded as the leader of official thought in London on the opposite side of the House, in respect of these matters.
This Bill is in two parts. Sub-section (1) deals with the Metropolis, and Subsection (2) with England and Wales. The London system is such that the ordinary citizen cannot have a reassessment unless there has been a real structural change in his premises, whereas the citizen outside London can come along virtually at any


time and ask that his premises should be reassessed because the whole of the circumstances affecting the premises have changed. The effect of the postponement is to deprive the citizens of England individually of their right to an individual reassessment. It would be intolerable at this moment when great stress is being imposed upon the staffs of borough councils to ask them to undertake a general re assessment in London, but the provincial postponement does not deprive the citizen of anything. It deprives the local authority of the power of assessment, but I understand that the individual citizen in my division of South Corydon, if he has a grievance—

Mr. Ede: I do not think that the local authority in the provinces are deprived of the right of submitting a proposal, if they so desire, in regard to individual properties. As I understand it—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, because I want to make the point quite clear—both the ratepayer and the local authority in the provinces are in exactly the same position.

Sir H. Williams: Perhaps I have been guilty of inadvertence, and I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, and perhaps I rather over-stated the case. The postponement of the valuation in the provinces means that general re-assessment cannot take place, but the two parties to the contract, the local authority and the ratepayer, retain their individual rights in respect of the particular property. In London, on the other hand, the postponement means that neither the local authority nor the individual can correct what may be an injustice in respect of an individual property. What has happened in London? Like the hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not sit for a London constituency but I live and working the City of Westminster. Certain parts of Westminster to-day are almost distressed areas. Not very far away from here there is that so-called fashionable district of Eaton Square. I am told that only six houses out of 120 are occupied. That is true of Westminster, true, in a different way, of the City of London, true of Holborn and Kensington and of the constituency which is represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor).
There is a perfectly appalling situation prevailing in London to-day. This Bill, quite rightly, postpones the general revaluation, but it leaves untouched the situation in which many parts of London are placed to-day. I heard the other day from a Member of the House of some premises in, I believe, the City of London that were let for £4,000 and assessed on that basis. On account of the circumstances of the present time the tenant approached the landlord, who agreed to a most extraordinary change until the emergency has passed, namely, that the rent should be reduced to £400. But rates have to be paid on £4,000. Something will have to be done soon. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington will take part in this Debate before it is finished because he represents a community in which there is a vast number of hotels and boarding-houses which, to-day, are almost derelict.
How some of these London boroughs are going to meet their precepts I do not know, because the London County Council does not collect rates; it demands them. It demands rates from 28 boroughs in London on, say, a valuation of £1,000,000, at 8s. in the £, and says, "We want a million eight shillings."

Mr. Ede: A county levies a rate of so many shillings in the pound and it only gets the product of a penny rate, multiplied by the number of pounds that are actually collected by the boroughs or districts concerned.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is not familiar with the London system. The London County Council system is based on the paper valuation of London, and they take this valuation and levy the rate based upon the paper valuation. It may be that in South Paddington 20 per cent. of the hereditaments are void, and the result is that the remaining 80 per cent. which are left have to find the money on the assumption that every house is occupied. I do not know what is going to happen. You may be forced into the situation where people will frankly refuse to pay rates, which is something we hate to contemplate, as this is a country of law abiding people. I have not seen any figures yet—none have been published—of the finances of London during the year which will begin 1st April—but the other day I saw a forecast for a town outside


London where, at the moment, the rates are in the neighbourhood of us. in the pound. They expect on increase of 4s. in the pound. There is all this burden of part of the A.R.P. expenditure which will not be borne by the Government; increased expenditure; large numbers of empty houses, the product of rates has fallen substantially; and people are going to be faced with a most intolerable position. Therefore, while I will support this Bill without the slightest hesitation, I must say to my right hon. Friend that within measurable period of time, indeed, fairly soon, there must be a Bill presented to the House to deal with the intolerable situation which exists in London and further measures to reduce the burden of the ratepayers up and down the country. Otherwise, I cannot visualize what the result will be. Even if the theory of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is correct—I do not think it is—it is not going to solve the problem of the burden suddenly thrown upon us by this emergency. While I hope that we may get to bed at a reasonable hour, I think that the few minutes which may be devoted to this Debate may be of the utmost importance, and I hope it will continue sufficiently long to enable the Minister to appreciate, as I think he does, that we are facing one of the most difficult problems in local finance that has ever been presented to a Minister of Health.

10.41 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: We have been told that the revaluation of property has to be postponed because of administrative difficulties. That may or may not be correct, but it does not in any way alter the fact that the revaluation of property should be carried out in the interests of justice. It is recognised, of course, that the value of property varies from time to time; that is the reason why we have a quinquennial valuation. That is due very shortly. In my constituency of South Paddington, the greatest single industry is that of hotels, apartment houses and lodging houses. The war has had a most disastrous effect upon the industry and as a direct result of the war the ratable value of property in South Paddington has been enormously reduced. But if the Bill is passed, as it will be, and nothing further is done, the ratepayers in Paddington will have to pay rates on an assessment which bears

no relation whatever to the existing value of the property.
The reduction in the value of property has been brought about first of all by the crisis in 1938. There was a considerable exodus on that account. There was a loss on "empties" of 8 per cent. Since the war there has been a further exodus which has been brought about to a certain extent by people voluntarily leaving London because they thought that London was going to be bombed on the outbreak of war and that they would be far safer in the country. Also visitors are not coming to London as they did in the usual course of events. But also it is due very largely to the evacuation policy which has been carried out by the Government, and that bad example has unfortunately been copied by many business firms and business men. The closing of universities, the evacuation of hospitals, the elimination of examinations for the Civil Service, the petrol restrictions and other factors have all helped to bring about the condition of affairs which exists in my constituency at the present time. The hotel, lodging house and apartment house industry in Paddington is almost ruined. The normal population is some137,000, and the present population is 98,000. Unfortunately, the people who are chiefly hit by this tremendous exodus are those in the hotel, apartment house and lodging house industry. Because of this state of affairs, the revaluation of the property is urgently required, but if this Bill passes, and nothing else is done, the revaluation will note carried out, and the position will become intolerable.
Therefore, I am very seriously concerned as to what in law will be the state of affairs if this Bill becomes an Act. Unfortunately, in London, the aggrieved ratepayer has no means of asking for an adjustment of his assessment unless he can establish a cause particular to his own property. He cannot bring forward "the war" or "the evacuation" as causes He must state a cause which is particular to his own property. That is a very wrong and very unjust state of affairs. We all know that the war actually is the cause, but no re-assessment in London can take place on the mere fact of the war or the evacuation. Already there has been a loss in income in the accounts of the borough of South Paddington for the first nine months of the present year of 16 per cent., and it is


feared that by the end of the year they will be up to 20 per cent. The borough precept, as far as my constituency is concerned is £820,620, and already the borough is £288,000 in debt to the preempting authority. That debt cannot be met. If there is to be no revaluation, if the Government are not going to give some assistance to fill the gaps between the rates received and the amount due to the preempting authority quite apart from any revaluation, the loss on the current year and the loss on next year—because conditions do not show much sign of improving—and the extra expenditure on air-raid precautions mean that there, will have to be an additional 3s. 6d.on the rates.
At the present time, the people in the hotel, apartment house and lodging house industry cannot meet their obligations. They are doing their utmost to do so, but they cannot. Places which used to be full or nearly full are practically empty. The people are not there. If this Bill becomes law, and nothing else is done, the people in my constituency will have to pay, in addition to their own rates now, another 3s. 6d. It must be quite obvious that they cannot possibly do that. The result will be that more and more people will default, more and more houses will become empty, and the position will go from bad to worse. It is a vicious circle. The consequence will be ultimately that the borough of South Paddington, and possibly other boroughs in London, will become derelict areas. As a matter of fact, such an increase in the rates would in itself increasingly perpetuate the difficulty and defeat the very object for which it was levied. If this Measure is put into operation and nothing else is done, that will be the case. I hope sincerely that the matter will not rest with the passage of this Bill.
A question has been raised with regard to the difference between boroughs in London and boroughs outside London. Unlike boroughs outside London, in the London boroughs ratable value is determined on the whole of the property, whether occupied or not. The borough authorities themselves have no power to exact rates on empty property. Therefore the ratepayer, in addition to the rates on his own house, has to pay the rates levied on unoccupied property as well. That seems most unjust and unfair. There is no justification for it. The value of a

property for purposes of assessment is "the sum which a hypothetical tenant would pay by way of rental, taking one year with another." That is the correct basis and on that basis it is obvious that the present ratable value of a great proportion of the houses in my constituency and many other constituencies is much below what it was when the last quinquennial valuation was taken. In common justice on that account, a revaluation should be taken as soon as possible. But if this Bill becomes law, there will be no revaluation and the ratepayers, in consequence, will be called on to pay rates on a totally false and unjust assessment. The result will be that more and more people will have to default, more and more houses will be empty, and the position will become impossible.
I am sure that if this Bill becomes law, it will not be carried out. It cannot be carried out. Reassessment will have to take place. The boroughs will be forced to reassess properties despite the law. That will bring the law into contempt, which is very undesirable. The worst thing in the world is to have a law which is not carried out. It is much better not to have the law. Therefore it is essential that, in addition to the postponement of this revaluation, other legislation should be passed as soon as possible to give local authorities statutory power to enable reassessments of property to take place. Its also most important that this question of cause should be dealt with on an equitable and proper basis and be universally applied. Everybody realizes that outside London the owner of property has not to give a particular cause. He can give a general cause and have his property reassessed. It is essential that the same practice should obtain in London. I am much opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill as it stands unless we can get an assurance from the Minister that very soon after the passing of the Bill, he will introduce further legislation giving local authorities statutory power to see that justice is done and that a reassessment of property is made.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I will not detain the House long because the speech to which we have just listened really conveyed much that was in my mind. I am making no excuse, however, for entering into the Debate because, as a matter of fact, I


was the first Member of this House approached by people distressed in London for advice and guidance in the disturbance which had come upon them. I point that out because some people in this House may have been anticipating that if I entered into the Debate I might be entering upon an academic sphere of rating; but I am too old a bird. I would say, however, tithe hon. Member for South Corydon (Sir H. Williams) that when I listened to his wild indignation at the rating system breaking down, I could not help remembering that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) prepared astound system of rating he was the gentleman who got up and opposed it. There he has the rating system in front of him and he does not like it.
If this had not been a time of war, the problem which we are discussing tonight would have been one of the first magnitude, because throughout the length and breadth of the land this rating problem has become not only a menace to administrators and local authorities, but also to the ratepayers. I am not going to take advantage of the present situation to present difficulties to the Government because they have already enough on their heads without my creating any more. I am going to suggest one or two things, however, to the Government. When these people came first to the House I advised them to abide by the law and that if they could prove that the rental value had disappeared, the quinquennial valuation notwithstanding, they would be entitled to submit their case to their local authorities and seek revaluation.

Mr. Spens: Not in London.

Mr. MacLaren: I am not disputing that. I am not dealing with this unique five years' valuation of London at all. That was the advice, and it was the only hope that I could see. People were coming to me from Paddington, from Kensington, and all over the place, and they were really distressed in some cases. What with rents high, and with the rates levied upon the premises, people were left bankrupt even to the extent of meeting the overhead charges. They could not possibly do it. When action was taken against them for rent by the landlord, the landlord in many cases, seeing that

the rating authority was likely to spring on the tenants for rates, pursued a policy of having an order in court to terminate the lease—at least to get powers of possession. The lease terminated because the lease would fuse, as it were, into the possession.
Here we have the situation in London where the landlord is watching whether the rating authorities are going to act, and the rating authorities are waiting to see what the landlord is going to do. The poor tenants between them, bankrupt anyhow, not knowing what to do, are coming to the court and asking what they are going to do. It is an extremely difficult problem for the Government. I would suggest that, instead of saying that there shall be nothing done until after the war—because that is what this Bill means—the Government should fully face the situation and override this five-year arrangement in the London rating system and do something to make the law work. What could be more farcical than to compel people to pay a rate upon a rent which does not exist, while the law of rating clearly lays down that the rate shall follow the rent, and that the rental shall be that rent which could be secured for the premises from year to year? We have got into the ridiculous position in which there are premises in London that would not let for anything at all. I know the case of a woman who has a capital of over £3,000 with furniture, fitments and so on. Her rental is close on £1,200 a year and she has not a soul in the place now. Yet she will receive a rate on a rental which has entirely evaporated. This kind of thing is bringing the law into ridicule and there is no avoiding the issue by any device that I know.
There is only one responsibility on the Government—and I know they have plenty of others without this, but this is an inevitable one which they must face. It is to make the rate payable by the tenant approximate to some nominal rent, because that is what it will amount to in many cases in London. If that is not done, if some hope is not given that the Government will do something along those lines, it will cause the most distressing pessimism among those people who have invested their all, their life's savings in many cases, in their buildings. I would ask the Government not merely to express themselves within the four corners of the Bill, but to take the


occasion of this Debate really to suggest that there will be immediately a review of the situation. It would not be so really pressing were it not that there are cases piling up against these people and summonses for rates. There are 30,000 in certain areas in London. It is that which is making it essential that the Government should say something that will give a ray of hope to these people. The five years hard-and-fast arrangement was a good practice in London when things were easy-going, but the present circumstances warrant an entire change in the valuation period, at least during the war. Something should be done to relieve these people from a veritable nightmare. The other night I met a man and a woman I did not know who told me they had been to some meeting where this question was discussed. They told me their place was near Earl's Court and that they had put their life's savings into a little hotel. They said they would hand over their building, their lease, and their property if anyone would pay the rates and the debts on the building. That case can be multiplied by hundreds. I ask the Government not passively to pass the Bill and to say, so far as the rating problem is concerned, that it is over until the war ends. That will not do. The tiling is too pressing and the tragedy is too terrible.
I could give the House case after case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know of the case which has recently passed through the courts, in which a man had put his whole life's savings into a little hotel business. He took his investments to the bank and offered them as security for further money for further investment in these premises. Just when he had launched the premises, the war came along, and every one of his tenants left him. He comes before the court, which orders possession to the landlord. He is away back, in the country, but in debt to the bank, having lost all.
This kind of thing is known to the Government. I plead with the Government; I do it with all sincerity. I could be tragical about the whole rating system, but I am not doing it. I plead with them to do something, and to do it speedily, because of the tragedy of which I know, of the people to whom I have spoken. These are the hardships of honest people, who entered into these enterprises—some of them foolishly, if

you like—to make a little something of their lives. They see everything evaporating. Heaven knows, it is bad enough when you lose your all in the circumstances of the war, but it is something much more bitter when the law, in full operation, points you out as a person who is in debt because of the non-fulfilment of rating payments and other liabilities which you could not possibly meet.
I think it will be clear to the Government that I am not making political capital out of this question. I am appealing, in the names of all those people whom I have met and spoken to, and who are some of the most heartrending cases I have ever known, that the Government should do something before this Debate ends to give some promise and some hope to these people that this problem is not insoluble to the Government, and that something will be done to bring a little happiness into these lives, that have been shattered by misfortune.

11.3 p.m.

Captain Sir William Brass: I should like to echo the very eloquent appeal that has been made to the Government, and to call attention to a slightly different aspect of the matter, relating to the City of London, about which I happen to know something. The position is that rents in the City of London are compounded. Consequently, when an office or a warehouse is let, rates are included. There are many big blocks of warehouse and office property of which the assessments were made in 1935. The value of the property has gone up very much since then, but the rates, which in 1935 were 11s. in the £, are now us. 6½d., including the water rate. Anybody who wants to take over offices or any of these warehouses goes to the landlord and says, "I am willing to pay a certain amount," which is much less than was being paid in 1935. The amount that is offered is probably that of the actual assessment of the particular hereditament. The result is that the landlord says, "I am not going to let this hereditament at that price. If I do, I shall have to pay 11s. 6£d. in the £ in rates, and then Income Tax on any profit. I have to pay all the overhead charges. The net result will be that, if I let it to you at £200, I shall have to pay in rates, taxes


and expenses, £250, in order to get that £200 of rent."
The result is that that property is left unlet and, when it is left unlet, the rates are not collected on it and the landlord instead of paying at the rate of 11s. 6½d. in the £, pays half the poor rate, which is 1s. 2d., and the result of that is that the amount of revenue to the rating authority is enormously diminished. Directly that happens obviously the poundage of the rates has to go up and, as it goes up, more and more property gets into exactly the same position, and consequently you go round in a vicious circle and, instead of being able to let the property as it comes into the market empty, the landlord refuses to let it because he is not going to make a loss by letting it and paying all the rates. That is a very serious position because, the longer it goes on, the more the vicious circle continues and the rating authorities gradually increase the poundage the whole time. It does not apply in the country, because you can have individual cases brought up, but in London, once you have the valuation fixed, it has to remain constant, and if the Bill is passed in its present form and it is postponed until the emergency is over, and afterwards for another period of two years, it is a very serious matter indeed, and the result will be that more and more property will become unlet, rates will go on bounding up all the time, and the unfortunate people my hon. Friend was talking about who have to pay the rates themselves and the landlords are going to be hit more and more by the increase in the poundage. I appeal most sincerely to my right hon. Friend to see whether it cannot be arranged that London shall be treated in the future in the same way as the country outside.

11.16 p.m.

Sir Harold Webbe: I want to thank the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) for the moving and vivid picture that he has painted of the position in London to-day. I believe that picture is very little exaggerated and with what he has said I find myself entirely in agreement, though in my belief, generally speaking, landlords have not behaved in the unreasonable manner the hon. Member suggested they had.

Mr. MacLaren: If I gave that impression, I did not mean to convey it, be-

cause in many cases in my experience landlords preferred even to reduce rents.

Sir H. Webbe: I apologies if I misunderstood the hon. Member's point. I shall not follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in the interesting picture that he painted of local government and its relation to the ratepayers, nor shall I intervene in the difference of opinion between the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for South Corydon (Sir H. Williams) though, if I took their point of view aright, I should be inclined to vote for my hon. Friend. Nor shall I incur the hon. Member's displeasure by talking about rating outside London. But I should like to say a few words about the position in London itself. I rise to support the Second reading of the Bill. I regard it as a most regrettable necessity. It is, I think, clearly a necessity, because the administrative task of undertaking a complete revaluation in to-day's conditions is one that we could not possibly contemplate. It is highly regrettable because it postpones indefinitely the remedying of serious injustices and inequalities which are inevitable in consequence of the peculiar rating procedure under which London works. Those problems and those inequalities which in normal times are created by the quinquennial assessment have become much more acute as the result of the war. The garage proprietor finds that the rationing of petrol has removed his livelihood, and he clearly has a case to plead for re-assessment. The task of the rating authority, endeavoring to do justice and at the same time properly to administer the law and to determine what is and what is not a "cause," is by no means an enviable one. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) has told us that in his constituency nothing arising out of the war is being accepted as a "cause" for the purpose of appealing against assessments.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: No; my hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I did not say that in Paddington nothing was being accepted.

Sir H. Webbe: Certainly in many boroughs circumstances arising out of the war are being accepted, and I think in justice may be accepted, as causes. But I hope the Attorney-General will be able


to assure us that the Government are alive to this grave difficulty, and will take whatever steps are necessary and possible to ensure that "cause" shall be liberally and uniformly interpreted throughout the boroughs of London. There's another reason why the Bill must be passed. The present time, when values are so completely disturbed by abnormal circumstances, is no time at which to fix values for a period of five years. But this Bill is concerned only with machinery, and our real difficulties in London are not difficulties of machinery but of fact. Just as the effect of the war has fallen very unevenly on individuals, so it has fallen unevenly on districts. Evacuation has removed tens of thousands of ratepayers from some of the wealthier districts of London for the duration of the war, and, in some cases, for ever. Shopkeepers and restaurateurs find that their clients have gone. Lodging-house keepers find their rooms empty. As a result, thousands of ratepayers of London, who hitherto have never failed to meet any civil obligation, find themselves haled to the courts as rates defaulters. Cumulatively, the effect is that the ratable capacity of London has been substantially reduced.
However you play with assessments and with "rates in the pound," we are faced with the fact that the potential rate income of London has been considerably reduced below the pre-war figure. At the same time, the expenditure which Statutes make obligatory on the local authorities remains the same, or, indeed, has been increased. Therefore, there is an inevitable gap between the ratable capacity and the expenditure which the authorities must incur. I am aware that that gap can be reduced, just as it may, with the progress of the war, be increased. It is possible for local authorities to economies. In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), I feel it would be unfair to particularize as to which authorities might take the lead in that matter, but any economy which is possible will not, in my submission, begin to fill the very serious gap which now exists. It is not the occasion to discuss ways and means of filling that gap, but I hope that we can have some assurance that the Government are very seriously considering this problem, and that they will take some steps to meet the difficulties.

Mr. A. Bean: The hon. Member will realise, of course, that circumstances beyond the control of local authorities have affected some authorities, and sent their rates up to 32s., 34s. or 35s. in the pound. We did not hear the hon. Member coming to their rescue at the time.

Sir H. Webbe: At the time those matters were discussed, I was not in the House, to come to the rescue of those authorities.

Mr. Bean: Some of your colleagues were.

Sir H. Webbe: But two blacks do not make a white, and it is a fact that in London there is grave difficulty in securing the money which is necessary for the essential public services. In regard to those areas to which the hon. Member has just referred, a considerable measure of assistance, in one form or another, has already been given by the Government. I do not want to stress the point; I merely beg the Government to consider this, not as a problem of the distant future, but as one of immediate urgency, which must be tackled if we are not to be faced with serious difficulty, if not breakdown, in connection with the local services of London.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Bean: I sympathies with the points made in a number of the speeches, but, representing an area where the rate poundage, despite the assistance given, has for some time been from 32s. to 35s., I am obliged to point out that some authorities have been visited by circumstances beyond their control, and that individual householders and property owners generally have suffered enormous hardship for many years, and have pleaded in vain to the House of Commons.

11.25 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somerville): I think it is the fact that every speaker to-night is agreed that this Bill is wise and inevitable, and that it would be quite impracticable for the local authorities in London and elsewhere to undertake at this time the business of the Quinquennial Valuation. The speeches to which we have listened to-night have been on the lines which my right hon. Friend anticipated, and have been directed to bringing before the House


various urgent problems which have arisen in connection with rating owing to war conditions, not by way of arguing against the Bill but by way of pointing out these problems and their urgency.
I do not think that those who have spoken need any assurance from me that my right hon. Friend and the Government realise the great hardships which have been caused to many people and the importance of the problems that have been raised and I should also like to pay some tribute to the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who, as we would expect, showed great sympathy and humanity to those with whom he came in contact. He also showed great self-control in keeping his hobby-horse in the stable, and—I would also like to pay tribute to this—while realizing these hardships, he also realised, from the point of view of the Government, that the problem was a very difficult one.
Although I do not wish to detain the House, I want to do justice to the points which have been raised. There was one main point which emerged from nearly every speech. Both hon. Gentlemen opposite and London Members dealt with the question of rigidity in London, as compared with the provinces, of individual interim revaluations. Everybody recognizes the distinction which exists between London and the provinces, and the greater rigidity in London. I would point out also, in connection with that, what I think is cognate. There's also greater rigidity in London in the matter of rate remission. The local authorities in London, unlike the provinces, can only remit rates after a proceeding before a justice. That, I think, is peculiar to London. In both London and the country generally a remission can only be granted on the ground of poverty. Questions on both these points have been raised and brought to the attention of the Government, particularly with regard to business premises, and, using the phrase, "business premises," I include hotels and apartment houses, and fiats in cases where a person lets them as a business, and premises used for professional purposes.
It has been suggested, as far as this class of premises is concerned, that there ought to be a more satisfactory procedure for remission in London. It has

been suggested that both in London and in the provinces, it might be desirable to extend the ground of remission so as not only to confine it to poverty but also to circumstances arising out of the war, such as have been detailed to-night. I can assure the House that both these suggestions are being carefully examined. I think remission is very important in this case because it is a more flexible power of remission which arrives at the same result as a more flexible form of interim revaluation. So far as cause is concerned it is no doubt very desirable that there should be uniformity by the London boroughs. It is a matter which I hope the Standing Joint Committee will continue to consider.
We have not had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) to-night. He no doubt has his own ideas on these matters and occupies an important position in regard to them.
One should point out, however, that any alteration either by law or administration of the existing construction is a thing which affects all the London boroughs. It is a matter which they have to consider together, and if they can arrive at a unanimous and agreed conclusion so much the better. It is very desirable that all boroughs through the Standing Joint Committee should direct attention to the problem and see whether they can agree on some common representation, or some representation which they can make to my right hon. Friend.
That point, I think, ran through most of the speeches which were made to-night. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) cast a glance at the general rating system as a whole, but the House will not want me, at this late hour, to go into that general question. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) dealt with cases which arise, not only in the City, but in business premises elsewhere, where it is desirable that the person liable for the rates should make an extensive remission of rent. It is points of this sort which we have in mind, and we are trying to see whether there are any practicable methods to meet them. I have not referred individually to every speech but I think I have dealt fairly with the matter in general. Before I sit down I want to assure the House that although the prob-


lems are difficult, and there may not be a legislative solution to them all, we are alive to them and are doing our best to see whether any solution which is practicable can be found to meet the present position.

Mr. MacLaren: Has the Attorney-General any idea when the Committee are likely to report?

The Attorney-General: I cannot give a date. The evidence has been taken and consideration is being given to the matter almost daily. I hope it will be soon. I do not think twill be next week, but I can say that we realise it is desirable that a derision should be come to as soon as possible.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tuesday next.—[Mr. fames Stuart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [7th FEBRUARY].

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1939.

Resolutions reported:

CLASS II.

VOTE 1. FOREIGN OFFICE.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £55,200, be granted this Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and a grant in aid of the Royal Institute of Inter national Affairs."

VOTE 2. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £127,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry services arising out of the war."

CLASS I.

VOTE 4. TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,880, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His

Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, the salary of a Minister for Coordination of Defence, the additional salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as a member of the Cabinet, and the salary of a Minister without Portfolio."

CLASS III.

VOTE II. LAW CHARGES.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Law Officers' Department, the salaries and expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the costs of prosecutions, of other legal proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

CLASS I.

VOTE 13. GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for a Grant in Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

CLASS II.

VOTE 7. COLONIAL OFFICE.

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

CLASS IV.

VOTE I. BOARD OF EDUCATION.

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected there with, including sundry grants in aid, grants and expenses in connection with physical training and recreation, and grants to approved associations for youth welfare."

VOTE 13. PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for public education in Scotland, for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including sundry grants in aid, and grants to approved associations and other expenses in connection with youth welfare."

CLASS III.

VOTE 15. APPROVED SCHOOLS, ETC., SCOTLAND.

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,120, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending


on the 31st day of March, 1940, for grants in respect of the expenses of the managers of approved schools, and of the expenses of Education Authorities in Scotland in respect of children and young persons committed to their care."

CLASS VI.

VOTE 22. STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

10. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the salaries and expenses of the State Management Districts, including the salaries of the central office, and the cost of provision and management of licensed premises."

Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT,1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the rural district of Ploughed, which was presented on the 6th day of February, 1940, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the city of Salisbury, which was presented on the 6th day of February, 1940, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to the borough of South all, which was presented on the 6th day of February, 1940, be approved."—[Mr. Peace.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes before Twelve o'clock till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.